Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$1.57
▲ $0.02 (+1.3%)
Market data updated: 09/19 10:04 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$331.02M
Day Range
$1.54 - $1.57
52-Week Range
$1.19 - $2.32
Beta
—
Next Earnings
17.11.2026
Support
$1.44
Resistance
$1.69
NNDM is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+11.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 9/27 factors positiveRisk: Medium
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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 77.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -137.0% (negative)
Fundamental
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
48
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
14d ago · $1.62
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 3 to 28 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
40
Quality
58
Value
55
Momentum
51
Risk
48
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
32
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Nano Dimension Ltd. has centered on leadership transitions and financial developments. The company announced Moshe Rozenbaum as interim CEO and Phillip Borenstein as chairman, while also appointing Nadav Kidron to the board to lead strategy. Financial results for Q2 2026 were released, and activist investor activity was noted, alongside broader industry comparisons. No substantive operational or product-focused updates were highlighted.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Nano Dimension Ltd.. News trend score: 62. Reason: 5 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
8
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
43
Psychology
11
Fundamentals
32
Technical
51
Valuation
55
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+16%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
43
Narrative Gap
+7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **tug-of-war between speculative momentum (FOMO) and cautious overconfidence**—traders may be chasing gains despite weak fundamentals, while elevated volume hints at active participation rather than panic. The lack of herd alignment (Herding score: 0) and neutral RSI (47) imply no extreme sentiment, but the overconfidence score (11) signals traders may be ignoring fundamentals. The narrow narrative gap (1 point) suggests perceptions align closely with reality, leaving the key question: *Will momentum sustain, or will traders reassess fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 01:05 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Nano Dimension Names Moshe Rozenbaum as Interim CEO, Phillip Borenstein as Chairman"
"Nano Dimension and 4 More Stocks See Action From Activist Investors"
"Nano Dimension Agrees to Terminate Lease for Corporate Headquarters"
📈 7D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: High (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
Benjamin Graham — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Graham’s documented principles, the model estimates the stock is extremely attractive, scoring 100 for both defensive and enterprising lenses, while Bagehot’s liquidity focus also yields a perfect score, highlighting strong balance‑sheet strength. Mid‑range scores from Marks, Smith and Loeb reflect a view that the risk is reasonably priced and the market cycle is neutral, suggesting cautious optimism but no dramatic upside. Growth‑oriented frameworks from Fisher, Lynch and Veblen assign modest scores, indicating that the company does not meet their quality‑or‑sustainable‑growth thresholds. In contrast, the efficient‑market, Schwager, Livermore and Housel perspectives produce the lowest scores, interpreting the stock as either already fully priced, lacking a clear trend, or being too volatile for patient investors.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 89
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 68
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
Reasonable but not a clear long-term holding
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 54
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 48
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 48
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 48
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 23
No real setup here — the discipline Schwager's wizards shared would say stay out
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)
🔴 15
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 14
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
Low 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.
Gross Margin
33.5%
Operating Margin
-137.0%
Net Margin
-286.3%
EBITDA Margin
-117.0%
ROE
-53.1%
ROA
-46.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$1.36
Cash
$204.67M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.02
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$1.57
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$8,436.38
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-89.16M | $-81.80M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-106.44M | $-89.59M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-121.07M | $-93.49M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-130.91M | $-92.74M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-134.18M | $-87.21M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-71.33M
Terminal Value
$-2.12B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.38B
Enterprise Value
$-1.82B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-1.82B
*The DCF model is an estimate based on assumptions — not a guaranteed forecast. You can change the assumptions to examine different scenarios.
Book Value per Share
$2,558.56
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$2,281.27
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 12 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 12.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 6.8.2026
PR Newswire · 6.8.2026
Barrons.com · 31.7.2026
Barrons.com · 24.7.2026
Yahoo · 24.7.2026
MT Newswires · 21.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 21.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 20.7.2026
MT Newswires · 17.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.7.2026
GlobeNewswire · 17.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 14.7.2026
MT Newswires · 10.7.2026
Stocktwits · 10.7.2026
Business Wire · 9.7.2026
Insider Monkey · 29.6.2026
Barrons.com · 26.6.2026
Nano Dimension Ltd. (NNDM) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
NNDM currently scores 48/100 (Moderate) across the categories we measure. StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
NNDM's technical score is 51/100, 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: Revenue growth (last year): 77.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 10.02.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -137.0% (negative); Net margin: -286.3% (negative); Calmar: -0.25 (3y annualized return -14.7% / max drawdown 58.3%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NNDM.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KIDRON NADAV | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 21.8.2026 | 0 | -100 | — |
| KIDRON NADAV | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 21.8.2026 | 30,000 | -10,000 | $1.50 |
| KIDRON NADAV | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 21.8.2026 | 10,000 | -10,000 | $1.50 |
| KIDRON NADAV | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 21.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | — |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.7.2026 | 24,971 | -24,971 | $1.48 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 13.7.2026 | 737,032 | -24,971 | $1.48 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.6.2026 | 19,841 | -19,841 | $1.52 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 9.6.2026 | 762,003 | -19,841 | $1.52 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 11,011 | -11,011 | $1.69 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.5.2026 | 420,791 | -11,011 | $1.69 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 11.5.2026 | 19,832 | -19,832 | $1.60 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 11.5.2026 | 781,844 | -19,832 | $1.60 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.5.2026 | 11,730 | -11,730 | $1.87 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.5.2026 | 431,802 | -11,730 | $1.87 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.4.2026 | 18,276 | -18,276 | $1.81 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 27.4.2026 | 801,676 | -18,276 | $1.81 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.3.2026 | 20,043 | -20,043 | $1.65 |
| Brenton John | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.3.2026 | 443,532 | -20,043 | $1.65 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 22,699 | -22,699 | $1.65 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.3.2026 | 819,952 | -22,699 | $1.65 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.2.2026 | 136,208 | -136,208 | $1.90 |
| Stehlin David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.2.2026 | 842,651 | -136,208 | $1.90 |
| Borenstein Phillip | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.1.2026 | 60,000 | +60,000 | — |
| Stehlin David | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.1.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Rosensweig Joshua | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.1.2026 | 285,000 | +285,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
10,115,310 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,368,819 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
24.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 35.7% 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