Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$8.56
▲ $0.36 (+4.3%)
Market data updated: 09/25 06:37 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/25/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$8.20 - $8.59
52-Week Range
$7.33 - $16.24
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$8.04
Resistance
$10.33
NRDS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-20.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $36.33 vs. price $8.56 (+324.6%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: -0.02 (3y annualized return -1.0% / max drawdown 55.4%)
Risk
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 3 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 3
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
58
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
82
Quality
58
Value
67
Momentum
16
Risk
48
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
65
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 NerdWallet, Inc. highlights its financial challenges and strategic shifts. Analysts note declining organic search traffic and revenue growth, alongside margin compression, driven by AI-driven competition and changing consumer habits. Despite Q2 earnings beating estimates, concerns persist about performance marketing reliance and long-term sustainability. The company’s focus on AI and owned audience investments remains under scrutiny amid broader economic uncertainty.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about NerdWallet, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
26
Fundamentals
65
Technical
16
Valuation
67
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-6%
Market Narrative
42
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+1
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
NRDS’s psychology profile reflects a mixed but cautious market stance, with anchoring near resistance (4.6% below) and neutral momentum (-2.4% ROC) dominating. The absence of panic or overconfidence suggests traders are neither fleeing nor overestimating upside, despite positive sentiment (86/100). The narrow narrative gap (2 points) implies alignment between perception and reality, though euphoria’s high score (13) hints at lingering optimism despite -73% undervaluation. The key question: will traders prioritize anchoring to resistance or reassess valuation?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:21 PM
👥 What the crowd believes
"NerdWallet faces significant headwinds from declining organic search traffic"
"NerdWallet faces declining revenue growth and margin compression amid intensifying AI-driven search competition"
"Revenue beats estimates as AI and owned audience investments expand"
"Wall Street Analysts Believe NerdWallet, Inc. (NRDS) Could Rally 27.85%"
📈 4D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 14/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for NRDS reflects deep methodological disagreements about risk, valuation, and market timing. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s liquidity resilience, aligning with his credit-focused pragmatism, while Peter Lynch’s high score suggests untapped growth potential—both principles prioritizing stability and upside. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s defensive approach and Philip Fisher’s quality bar leave room for caution, as neither sees it as a standout opportunity. On the other end, the lowest scores—from Livermore’s trend-following skepticism to Schwager’s lack of setup—stem from contrasting assumptions: Livermore’s bearish bias clashes with the stock’s momentum, while Schwager’s systematic discipline dismisses it outright. Even within the same investor’s frameworks (e.g., Graham’s defensive vs. enterprising investor), the verdicts swing wildly, illustrating how nuanced valuation thresholds can flip conclusions entirely.
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 94
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 89
Cycle position looks favorable — closer to oversold than overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 86
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 80
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 72
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 67
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)
🟢 66
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 64
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 59
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 55
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 (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 53
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 48
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 47
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 14
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
Based on the last 287 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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.
A trading range after an advance, but still without clear (volume-based) confirmation of a distribution phase.
Low confidence
$8.04
Range Bottom
$10.33
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
92.4%
Operating Margin
7.8%
Net Margin
5.8%
EBITDA Margin
13.3%
ROE
13.0%
ROA
10.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.66
Cash
$98.30M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.45
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$8.56
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$36.33
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+324.6%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
15.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15.9% | $150.98M | $138.51M |
| 2 | 12.5% | $169.89M | $143.00M |
| 3 | 9.2% | $185.50M | $143.24M |
| 4 | 5.8% | $196.34M | $139.09M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $201.24M | $130.80M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$130.30M
Terminal Value
$3.17B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.06B
Enterprise Value
$2.76B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$2.76B
*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
$4.93
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$3.02
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 7 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
TheStreet · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
StockStory · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
PR Newswire · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
NerdWallet, Inc. (NRDS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 58/100, 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.
NRDS currently scores 58/100 (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.
Per StockIQ's DCF model, NRDS's estimated fair value is $36.33, which is 324.6% above the current price of $8.56. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
NRDS's technical score is 16/100, which currently reads as bearish — 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: Estimated fair value: $36.33 vs. price $8.56 (+324.6%); Revenue growth (last year): 21.7%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 68.4%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: -0.02 (3y annualized return -1.0% / max drawdown 55.4%); Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for NRDS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 6 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Jun Hyung | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 354,783 | -13,299 | $9.78 |
| Chen Tim Chao-Ming | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 539,160 | -7,723 | $9.78 |
| Mischner Sam Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 228,121 | -22,643 | $9.78 |
| Tatum Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 69,466 | -2,990 | $9.78 |
| Lee Jun Hyung | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 13,299 | -13,299 | $9.78 |
| Mischner Sam Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 22,643 | -22,643 | $9.78 |
| Tatum Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 2,990 | -2,990 | $9.78 |
| Chen Tim Chao-Ming | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.9.2026 | 7,723 | -7,723 | $9.78 |
| Topline Capital Management, LLC | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 454,872 | -454,872 | $9.27 |
| Topline Capital Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 454,872 | -454,872 | $9.27 |
| Topline Capital Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 587,835 | -587,835 | $9.22 |
| Topline Capital Management, LLC | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 587,835 | -587,835 | $9.22 |
| Topline Capital Partners, LP | Open Market Sale | 26.6.2026 | 919,153 | -919,153 | $8.95 |
| Topline Capital Management, LLC | Open Market Sale | 26.6.2026 | 919,153 | -919,153 | $8.95 |
| Mischner Sam Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 1,572 | -1,572 | $8.75 |
| Tatum Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 3,263 | -3,263 | $8.75 |
| Lee Jun Hyung | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 47,876 | -47,876 | $8.75 |
| Chen Tim Chao-Ming | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 15,309 | -15,309 | $8.75 |
| Chen Tim Chao-Ming | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 546,883 | -15,309 | $8.75 |
| Lee Jun Hyung | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 368,082 | -47,876 | $8.75 |
| Tatum Nicholas | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 72,456 | -3,263 | $8.75 |
| Mischner Sam Brian | Tax Withholding in Shares | 1.6.2026 | 249,725 | -1,572 | $8.75 |
| Chia Teresa | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 19,764 | +19,764 | — |
| Chia Teresa | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 19,710 | +19,710 | — |
| Chia Teresa | Grant/Award from Employer | 22.5.2026 | 19,764 | +19,764 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
4,740,785 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 3,760,284 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.7% 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