Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$181.03
▲ $6.07 (+3.5%)
Market data updated: 09/22 08:32 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$6.26B
Day Range
$174.61 - $181.77
52-Week Range
$74.51 - $201.54
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$131.00
Resistance
$201.54
QLYS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+33.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 18/28 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 31.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $159.14 vs. price $181.03 (-12.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (73/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
70
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
73
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
83
Risk
34
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
75
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 Qualys, Inc. has centered on its strong financial performance and market valuation. The company reported double-digit revenue growth (11% year-over-year in Q2 2026) and raised its full-year guidance, alongside introducing AI-driven security innovations. Analysts debate whether its stock—trading near $171.65—is fairly valued, given its solid five-year return (49.4%) and mixed earnings vs. cash flow metrics. While the stock surged 56% over 90 days, recent gains have cooled, sparking discussions on whether growth potential is already priced in.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Qualys, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 15 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
40
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
41
Psychology
54
Fundamentals
75
Technical
83
Valuation
38
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
+61%
Market Narrative
73
Fundamental Reality
41
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
QLYS’s psychology is dominated by Euphoria, where price action (+41.9% above 200-day avg, +8% above DCF) outpaces fundamental momentum (-8.1% ROC) and sentiment remains uniformly bullish (100/100). This suggests investors are ignoring short-term weakness, possibly due to overconfidence in narrative-driven growth or anchoring to recent highs. The narrative gap (54 vs. 41) further implies a disconnect between market enthusiasm and underlying reality. The key question: *Will traders sustain euphoria despite diverging momentum, or will FOMO/Panic Selling re-emerge if volume spikes further?*
Updated: 09/08/2026, 12:08 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported non-GAAP earnings and revenue above consensus expectations and included higher full-year guidance"
"revenue of $182.2 million, up 11% from a year earlier"
"new AI-driven security capabilities"
"strong agreement among Wall Street analysts in revising earnings estimates higher"
📈 5D 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
Philip Fisher — 79/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 8/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some investors seeing strong potential while others flag it as a high-risk or overvalued bet. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests the stock may be near a cyclical low, aligning with his contrarian, oversold-focused approach. Meanwhile, Philip Fisher and Thorstein Veblen’s moderate-to-high scores imply the company’s fundamentals or growth trajectory could justify a long-term hold, though neither is overwhelmingly bullish. On the opposite end, Benjamin Graham and his Enterprising Investor variant dismiss it outright, citing valuation concerns and lack of defensive metrics, while Walter Bagehot and Gerald M. Loeb warn of liquidity and risk issues that would deter them entirely. The middle ground—where Peter Lynch, Howard Marks, and the efficient-market camp sit—reflects skepticism, either due to valuation, market timing, or the absence of clear edge over passive strategies. The contrast highlights how fundamentalists (like Fisher) and cyclical traders (like Nelson) see value where others see red flags.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 79
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 69
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 60
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 47
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 39
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 37
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 37
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
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)
🔴 35
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
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)
🔴 30
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
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 25
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 23
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 19
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)
🔴 8
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 282 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 1 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
82.8%
Operating Margin
33.2%
Net Margin
29.6%
EBITDA Margin
35.3%
ROE
35.3%
ROA
18.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$5.49
Cash
$250.26M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
1.41
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$181.03
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$159.14
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-12.1%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
11.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 11.0% | $337.82M | $309.93M |
| 2 | 8.9% | $367.75M | $309.52M |
| 3 | 6.7% | $392.52M | $303.10M |
| 4 | 4.6% | $410.66M | $290.92M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $420.92M | $273.57M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$304.41M
Terminal Value
$6.64B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$4.31B
Enterprise Value
$5.80B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$5.80B
*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
$15.39
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.07
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 15 positive, 2 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 12.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
The Fly · 11.9.2026
MT Newswires · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Zacks · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
Qualys, Inc. (QLYS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 70/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
QLYS currently scores 70/100 (Strong) 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, QLYS's estimated fair value is $159.14, which is 12.1% below the current price of $181.03. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
QLYS's technical score is 83/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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: Free cash flow growth: 31.3%; Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Return on equity (ROE): 35.3% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $159.14 vs. price $181.03 (-12.1%); ATR: 5.4% of price; Calmar: 0.09 (3y annualized return 5.7% / max drawdown 63.0%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for QLYS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 25 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 102 | -102 | $172.37 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 204 | -204 | $170.05 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 293 | -293 | $167.49 |
| Berquist Thomas | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 511 | -511 | $175.27 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 265 | -265 | $171.14 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 166 | -166 | $168.75 |
| POSEY BRUCE K | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 280 | -280 | $185.91 |
| POSEY BRUCE K | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 393 | -393 | $183.58 |
| Pfeiffer Wendy | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 500 | -500 | $185.00 |
| POSEY BRUCE K | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 97 | -97 | $181.99 |
| POSEY BRUCE K | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 96 | -96 | $184.25 |
| Thakar Sumedh S | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 1,300 | -1,300 | $189.41 |
| Thakar Sumedh S | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 600 | -600 | $190.49 |
| Thakar Sumedh S | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 406 | -406 | $186.28 |
| Thakar Sumedh S | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 794 | -794 | $188.07 |
| Thakar Sumedh S | Open Market Sale | 14.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $192.27 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $155.12 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 827 | -827 | $154.51 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 300 | -300 | $152.78 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $147.22 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 100 | -100 | $148.54 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 200 | -200 | $151.47 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 77,270 | -100 | $147.22 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 77,170 | -100 | $148.54 |
| Kim Joo Mi | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 76,970 | -200 | $151.47 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,649,642 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 3,730,211 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
75.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 78.7% 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