Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$67.04
▼ $6.16 (-8.4%)
Market data updated: 09/16 07:00 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/15/2026
News analyzed: 09/16/2026
Market Cap
$26.10B
Day Range
$66.50 - $74.42
52-Week Range
$44.56 - $134.92
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
ON is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+35.3% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/31 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.39
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $43.49 vs. price $67.04 (-35.1%)
Fair Value
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
74/100
Similarity
15
Historical Matches
88/100
Analog Quality
+6.0%
Median 40D Outcome
0/100
Pattern Consistency
🟢 Bullish
60%
+17.2% … +23.4%
🟡 Base
0%
— … —
🔴 Bearish
40%
-12.5% … -8.0%
Typical timeframe (based on real historical rates clearing a 60% bar): 5 trading days.
📌 Bottom line: Out of 15 similar historical cases for this stock, 60% (95% CI 36%–80%) saw the stock rise within 20 trading days, with a median gain of +7.4%.
Echo #1 — Momentum Breakout
6 occurrence(s) · 50% historical success
Echo #2 — Oversold Reversal
3 occurrence(s) · 67% historical success
Historical outcome rate is not a probability — it's what happened in this specific historical sample, with a 95% confidence range.
| Horizon | Positive rate (95% CI) | Median | 25th–75th pct | Baseline median |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5D | 67% (42%–85%) | +3.0% | -6.1% … +14.2% | +0.6% |
| 10D | 60% (36%–80%) | +8.9% | -9.8% … +14.8% | +1.2% |
| 20D | 60% (36%–80%) | +7.4% | -8.3% … +18.8% | +1.9% |
| 40D | 67% (42%–85%) | +6.0% | -9.2% … +24.9% | +2.7% |
| 60D | 67% (42%–85%) | +31.3% | -10.3% … +40.3% | +4.7% |
Sample size: 15 analogs, each at least 10 trading days apart (no double-counted overlapping events).
What happened after each historical match (20-day return)
| Date | Similarity | Regime | 20D outcome | 60D outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-10 | 74/100 | Downtrend | -8.9% | -17.5% |
| 2025-01-08 | 73/100 | Downtrend | -12.1% | -39.8% |
| 2018-09-25 | 72/100 | Downtrend | -12.6% | -12.6% |
| 2018-10-26 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +28.7% | +37.6% |
| 2025-10-10 | 72/100 | Downtrend | +4.6% | +35.3% |
| 2025-03-28 | 71/100 | Downtrend | -2.2% | +31.3% |
| 2026-03-30 | 70/100 | Consolidation | +67.6% | +113.3% |
| 2025-11-17 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +18.6% | +56.9% |
| 2018-10-12 | 69/100 | Downtrend | +7.4% | +7.4% |
| 2023-04-27 | 69/100 | Consolidation | +17.2% | +43.0% |
| 2020-03-02 | 68/100 | ✓ High Volatility | -31.5% | -7.9% |
| 2022-11-03 | 67/100 | High Volatility | +23.4% | +31.5% |
| 2025-02-27 | 67/100 | Downtrend | -7.6% | -12.9% |
| 2024-04-23 | 66/100 | Downtrend | +18.1% | +17.6% |
| 2026-03-12 | 65/100 | Consolidation | +19.0% | +109.6% |
Every accepted match is compared to today across 6 domains (price structure, momentum, technical, volatility, volume, relative strength) using z-scored feature distances — no single indicator dominates. Matches within 10 trading days of each other count as one event, not independent evidence. Outcome rates use a Wilson confidence interval (never a raw percentage alone), the mean return is winsorized against extreme outliers, and "Analog Quality" separately captures sample size, data completeness, and regime match — distinct from raw similarity. Relative strength is measured against SPY and against XLK (this stock's sector).
Cross-stock analogs — real other companies, not this stock's own history.
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
42
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
37
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
19
Risk
46
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
51
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING ON...
Recent media coverage on ON Semiconductor focuses on its stock performance and growth opportunities in artificial intelligence. The stock recently dropped 4.44% to $
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about ON Semiconductor. News trend score: 100. Reason: 12 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
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
84
Fundamentals
51
Technical
19
Valuation
33
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
-45%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Loss Aversion** state (66) reflects a market where traders cling to positions despite a prolonged drawdown (-34.3% over three months), with volume spikes (1.09x) signaling reluctance to exit. Overconfidence (45) and confirmation bias (38) coexist, as traders overvalue narrative (+63% DCF premium) while ignoring deteriorating fundamentals. Anchoring (60) near support (2.0% above) suggests traders await reversal signals, though negative momentum (-3.1% ROC) and peer underperformance undermine optimism. The key question: *Will traders prioritize loss mitigation or pivot to risk-off behavior as fundamentals deteriorate?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:01 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"ON Semiconductor is positioned as a key enabler of physical AI, focusing on power, sensing, and control layers."
"settling at $71.08, representing a -4.44% change from its previous close."
📈 10D 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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 96/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with the highest-scoring models—like Walter Bagehot’s liquidity-focused approach (95) and Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s cycle analysis (89)—praising its resilience and favorable positioning, framing it as a potential survivor of market stress or an undervalued cyclical play. Meanwhile, the mid-tier group, including Howard Marks’ market-cycle view (84) and Jack Schwager’s disciplined setup (82), sees it as a cautiously attractive opportunity, though not yet in a euphoric phase. At the opposite end, the lowest-scoring models—particularly Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria (29) and Thorstein Veblen’s growth-for-growth’s-sake warning (12)—reject it outright, citing either a lack of intrinsic value or speculative overreach. The stark contrast reflects a tension between structural stability (liquidity, cycle positioning) and fundamental or qualitative flaws (cheapness, growth quality), leaving no clear consensus beyond a handful of bullish or bearish extremes.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 96
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 95
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 80
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 75
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 65
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 57
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 50
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
Mixed — a good business, but expectations may already be high
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 38
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 35
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 35
Doesn't show the stability Smith's long-term case requires
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
Not statistically cheap enough for the Enterprising Investor's looser safety bar
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 29
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 22
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)
🔴 21
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 300 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 10 bearish · 0 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.
Medium 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
33.1%
Operating Margin
1.4%
Net Margin
2.0%
EBITDA Margin
12.8%
ROE
1.6%
ROA
1.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.29
Cash
$2.15B
Total Debt
$2.98B
Current Ratio
4.52
Debt/Equity
0.39
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$67.04
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$43.49
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-35.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-5.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -5.0% | $1.35B | $1.24B |
| 2 | -3.1% | $1.31B | $1.10B |
| 3 | -1.2% | $1.29B | $995.53M |
| 4 | 0.6% | $1.30B | $919.04M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $1.33B | $864.23M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$1.42B
Terminal Value
$20.97B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$13.63B
Enterprise Value
$18.74B
Net Debt
$832.90M
Equity Value
$17.91B
*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
$18.63
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$13.72
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 12 positive, 5 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
ChartMill · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Zacks · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 10.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Stocktwits · 8.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 8.9.2026
ON Semiconductor (ON) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 42/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
ON currently scores 42/100 (Weak) 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, ON's estimated fair value is $43.49, which is 35.1% below the current price of $67.04. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
ON's technical score is 19/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.39; Current ratio: 4.52; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $43.49 vs. price $67.04 (-35.1%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 5.7% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for ON.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 116 | +116 | $91.22 |
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.7.2026 | 57,590 | +116 | $91.22 |
| GOPALSWAMY SUDHIR | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.5.2026 | 470 | -470 | $127.00 |
| GOPALSWAMY SUDHIR | Tax Withholding in Shares | 26.5.2026 | 173,588 | -470 | $127.00 |
| Deitrich Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| KIDDOO BRUCE E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| WATERS GREGORY L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| CARTER SUSAN K | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| Yan Christine Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 1,986 | +1,986 | — |
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 57,474 | +1,986 | — |
| KIDDOO BRUCE E | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 19,216 | +1,986 | — |
| Yan Christine Y | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 48,655 | +1,986 | — |
| CARTER SUSAN K | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 25,638 | +1,986 | — |
| WATERS GREGORY L | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 24,524 | +1,986 | — |
| Deitrich Thomas | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.5.2026 | 26,060 | +1,986 | — |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 24.4.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | $100.00 |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 24.4.2026 | 271,194 | -30,000 | $100.00 |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 23.4.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | $93.00 |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 23.4.2026 | 301,194 | -30,000 | $93.00 |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 16.4.2026 | 30,000 | -30,000 | $80.00 |
| Thad Trent | Open Market Sale | 16.4.2026 | 331,194 | -30,000 | $80.00 |
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.4.2026 | 168 | +168 | $62.19 |
| MASCARENAS PAUL ANTHONY | Grant/Award from Employer | 3.4.2026 | 55,488 | +168 | $62.19 |
| GOPALSWAMY SUDHIR | Open Market Sale | 13.3.2026 | 6,114 | -6,114 | $58.67 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
30,222,318 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 30,922,210 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
33.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 40.7% 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