Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Industrials · ·
$26.46
▲ $0.74 (+2.9%)
Market data updated: 09/19 12:26 PM
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$25.60 - $26.58
52-Week Range
$23.83 - $48.40
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$23.83
Resistance
$33.36
MWH is a stock from the Industrials sector — Manufacturing, aerospace, defense, and infrastructure — closely tied to capital-investment cycles and economic growth.
-14.4% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 3/10 factors positiveRisk: High
This score and all analysis on this page are for informational and educational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Read the full disclaimer
Weighted: Technical 25% · Fundamental 20% · Growth 15% · Valuation 15% · News 10% · Quality 10% · Risk 5%
Overall Score
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
MACD
MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 5.5% of price
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 0 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 0
TIME ECHO identifies historical situations that resemble the current market state. Historical outcomes are not guarantees of future performance. Similarity does not imply causation, and results may change as new data becomes available.
🗓️ What Changed This Week
🌱 Building History
We don't have a real data point from a week ago for this stock yet. The weekly comparison will appear once enough history has accumulated.
📊 Score History
60
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
47
Risk
42
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of SOLV Energy, Inc. has centered on its strong financial performance and market optimism, particularly following its IPO and raised revenue guidance. Analysts, including TD Cowen, have maintained a positive outlook, raising price targets and suggesting the stock may be undervalued by up to 49%. The company’s $8.9 billion backlog and robust Q2 2026 earnings report have reinforced investor confidence, positioning SOLV as a key player in enabling energy infrastructure for AI data centers amid broader industry growth.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SOLV Energy, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
27
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
57
Fundamentals
—
Technical
47
Valuation
—
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-23%
Market Narrative
72
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+22
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests dominant **loss aversion**, as the stock’s recent decline (-12.2% in 3 months) and subdued volume (0.72x average) indicate investors are hesitant to crystallize losses. Despite uniformly positive sentiment (100/100), technicals like negative momentum (-9.0% ROC) and neutral RSI (44) signal caution rather than aggressive buying. The narrative gap (4 points) hints at a disconnect between optimism and reality, but the key question remains: *Will subdued volume persist, or will a break below key support trigger further defensive positioning?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 03:52 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"TD Cowen analyst Marc Bianchi maintains SOLV Energy with a Buy and raises the price target from $32 to $35."
"SOLV Energy hits IPO price despite surging revenue, raised 2025 guidance and $8.9B backlog."
"SOLV Energy (MWH) Stock Could Be 49% Undervalued After Raised Guidance."
"SOLV Energy (MWH) Lifts Guidance As Valuation Questions Grow After Earnings."
📈 9D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (confidence in the behavioral read, not a price prediction). Describes observable market behavior, not what any individual investor thinks, and is not a buy/sell signal.
🏛️ Investor DNA — Historical Investors
A Historical Strategy Simulation: assuming each investor follows their documented principles, how would they rate this stock today? This is not a prediction of what they would actually do.
🟢 Best match
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 59/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on their documented principles, the model estimates that cycle‑oriented investors such as Samuel Armstrong Nelson (score 92) and Howard Marks’ market‑cycle view (score 69) see a favorable position, interpreting the stock as oversold or early‑mid cycle. Momentum‑focused thinkers like Charles Mackay (score 64) detect rising crowd excitement, while value‑oriented analysts such as Graham, Fisher, Lynch, Bagehot and Graham‑Enterprising all receive a neutral 50 because the available balance‑sheet, valuation and growth data are insufficient for a definitive read. In contrast, risk‑averse and efficiency‑oriented perspectives—including Howard Marks (score 28), Gerald Loeb (score 26), Thorstein Veblen (score 20), Edgar Smith (score 15), Jesse Livermore (score 12) and Morgan Housel (score 0)—flag significant caution, citing valuation risk, negative trend, or a preference for a low‑cost index. These divergent outcomes stem from each methodology’s core lens—cycle and momentum versus valuation, risk and market efficiency—resulting in a split between optimism and concern for the stock.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 59
Somewhere in the middle of the cycle
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 53
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 52
Mixed case — the evidence for picking this stock over an index is not strong
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 43
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 42
Negative trend — against Livermore's core rule of trading with the trend
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 36
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 28
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 26
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 20
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
The kind of volatility that tends to shake patient holders out
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 151 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (3 bullish · 4 bearish · 2 neutral)
A market-structure read based purely on real price and volume data — not full classic Wyckoff schematic identification (Phase A-E), but a quantitative analysis of what can reliably be computed: trading ranges, "effort vs. result", volume within the range, and Spring/Upthrust detection.
The stock is in a clear downtrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High confidence
The Wyckoff Method, developed by Richard Wyckoff in the early 20th century, reads the balance of supply and demand through price and volume, based on the premise that large investors ("smart money") quietly accumulate shares before rallies and quietly distribute them before declines. The read here is based solely on real price and volume data — full, precise identification of classic Wyckoff patterns (such as Phases A-E) requires human chart-reading experience and judgment, so this is an approximate algorithmic read, not a substitute for professional analysis. This should not be considered investment advice.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 8 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 26.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 25.8.2026
Benzinga · 21.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 21.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 20.8.2026
Motley Fool · 20.8.2026
Benzinga · 20.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 19.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
MarketBeat · 13.8.2026
Benzinga · 13.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 13.8.2026
MT Newswires · 13.8.2026
Associated Press · 13.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 13.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for SOLV Energy, Inc. (MWH) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for MWH specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
MWH's technical score is 47/100, which currently reads as neutral — based on real price/volume signals (moving averages, RSI, MACD, and more), not a prediction of what happens next.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Price is above the SAR point — uptrend; ROC 12 days: 6.8%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 5.5% of price; Price is below the 50-day average; -24.6% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for MWH.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 11 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stefanowicz Nancy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Abram J Adam | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| McQuade Daniel P | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Lerner Steven J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Jackson William C | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Stern Laura Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| McQuade Daniel P | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Abram J Adam | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Lerner Steven J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Stefanowicz Nancy | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Stern Laura Ellen | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| Jackson William C | Grant/Award from Employer | 27.8.2026 | 1,776 | +1,776 | — |
| AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.8.2026 | 3,069,193 | -3,069,193 | — |
| Kimball Helena Elisabeth | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 11,342 | -11,342 | — |
| Pearson Brandi Michelle | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 25,555 | -25,555 | — |
| AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 7,939,153 | -7,939,153 | — |
| Hershman George William | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 233,048 | -233,048 | — |
| Stark Ronald B | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 4,733 | -4,733 | — |
| AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC | Conversion of Derivative Security | 19.8.2026 | 3,069,193 | +3,069,193 | — |
| Forman Adam S | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 11,480 | -11,480 | — |
| SOLV Energy Management Holdings LP | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 1,329,803 | -1,329,803 | — |
| AMERICAN SECURITIES LLC | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 7,939,153 | -7,939,153 | — |
| Grubb David Harold Jr. | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 149,258 | -149,258 | — |
| Deters Kevin J. | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 70,176 | -70,176 | — |
| Valleton Eric John | Open Market Sale | 19.8.2026 | 33,156 | -33,156 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,226,233 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 7,980,092 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 27.6% the prior week
Based on daily short-sale volume (Reg SHO) — a different metric from the open short interest above: this is daily trading volume, not an open position, so it updates weekly rather than biweekly.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology