Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$76.00
▼ $1.78 (-2.3%)
Market data updated: 09/19 02:16 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$5.98B
Day Range
$75.71 - $78.01
52-Week Range
$50.82 - $85.84
Beta
—
Next Earnings
05.11.2026
Support
$57.75
Resistance
$79.77
RDNT is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
+3.4% (1Y)
Strengths: 11/30 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 1.76
Risk
Biggest negative driver
Net margin
Net margin: -0.9% (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
54
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
43
Quality
42
Value
50
Momentum
74
Risk
56
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
30
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 RadNet, Inc. highlights its strong revenue growth and mixed profitability. The company reported a record **$622.7 million in Q2 revenue**, up **25% year-over-year**, though profit growth lagged behind sales, with a widened net loss over six months. Analysts like Barclays maintained an **overweight rating** and raised their price target to **$79**, citing RadNet’s expanding healthcare partnerships and AI-driven imaging solutions. The focus remains on its financial performance and strategic positioning in medical imaging.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about RadNet, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 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
35
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
30
Technical
74
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 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)
+45%
Market Narrative
62
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+26
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests a **narrative-reality gap** (20-point divergence) where euphoria persists despite weak momentum, driven by extreme positive sentiment (100/100) and outperformance relative to the 200-day baseline. Herding is active but muted, as the stock underperforms peers today, indicating selective participation rather than blind following. The absence of panic or overconfidence signals suggests traders are cautiously optimistic, though the lack of momentum (negative ROC) and neutral RSI (46) may limit upside. The key question: *Will the gap between narrative (euphoria) and reality (weak momentum) widen further, or will external catalysts force a re-evaluation?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 07:18 AM
👥 What the crowd believes
"RadNet posted second-quarter revenue of $622.7 million, a 25.0% jump... but profit growth lagged"
"Barclays maintains RadNet with an Overweight rating and raises price target to $79"
"RadNet tops Q2 estimates as advanced imaging and Digital Health growth accelerate"
📈 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
Jesse Livermore — 50/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for RDNT reflects deep methodological differences in how these investors evaluate stocks. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests he’d see a cyclical opportunity near an oversold trough, trusting in market reversals, while Charles Mackay’s moderate score hints at cautious optimism due to crowd-driven excitement—both leaning toward speculative timing. In contrast, the majority of methodologies—from the efficient-market skeptics (Malkiel/Bogle) to the risk-averse (Loeb, Marks, Bagehot)—flag red flags like weak fundamentals, liquidity risks, or valuation concerns, with scores clustering in the mid-to-low 30s. Fisher, Lynch, and Graham’s near-zero scores underscore a consensus that RDNT lacks the stability, growth, or defensive traits they prioritize, while Veblen’s lowest score implies a dismissive view of its speculative, non-essential nature. The debate thus pits cyclical opportunists against fundamentalists and risk managers, with only Nelson’s approach seeing any merit.
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟢 65
A real, well-supported case — deviating from a broad index may be justified here
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)
🟡 50
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 47
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk 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
🟡 43
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 42
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 42
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 38
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 32
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 26
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)
🔴 24
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 22
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 18
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 13
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 281 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 2 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
—
Operating Margin
3.0%
Net Margin
-0.9%
EBITDA Margin
10.5%
ROE
-1.7%
ROA
-0.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.25
Cash
$767.22M
Total Debt
$1.09B
Current Ratio
1.76
Debt/Equity
1.00
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$14.50
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.45
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
StockStory · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 8.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Insider Monkey · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 2.9.2026
StockStory · 2.9.2026
Benzinga · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
NewMediaWire · 26.8.2026
StockStory · 20.8.2026
RadNet, Inc. (RDNT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 54/100, 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.
RDNT currently scores 54/100 (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.
RDNT's technical score is 74/100, 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: Current ratio: 1.76; Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Net margin: -0.9% (negative); Operating margin is eroding over time; Return on equity (ROE): -1.7% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RDNT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 10 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SWARTZ DAVID L | Open Market Sale | 18.6.2026 | 2,699 | -2,699 | $53.89 |
| SWARTZ DAVID L | Open Market Sale | 18.6.2026 | 177,013 | -2,699 | $53.89 |
| Wesdorp Cornelis | Open Market Sale | 16.6.2026 | 4,750 | -4,750 | $58.11 |
| Berger Howard G | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 90 | -90 | — |
| Berger Howard G | Gift | 16.6.2026 | 19,910 | -90 | — |
| Forthuber Stephen M | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 24,214 | -24,214 | $57.79 |
| Forthuber Stephen M | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 19,853 | -19,853 | $58.61 |
| Forthuber Stephen M | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 527,052 | -24,214 | $57.79 |
| Forthuber Stephen M | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 507,199 | -19,853 | $58.61 |
| Jacobs Laura Pastre | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 2,946 | +2,946 | — |
| SPURLOCK GREGORY E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 2,946 | +2,946 | — |
| SWARTZ DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 2,946 | +2,946 | — |
| Levitt Lawrence L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 2,946 | +2,946 | — |
| SWARTZ DAVID L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 179,712 | +2,946 | — |
| Levitt Lawrence L | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 167,902 | +2,946 | — |
| SPURLOCK GREGORY E. | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 8,236 | +2,946 | — |
| Jacobs Laura Pastre | Grant/Award from Employer | 2.6.2026 | 29,953 | +2,946 | — |
| Berger Howard G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 25,992 | -25,992 | — |
| Berger Howard G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 25,992 | +25,992 | $18.64 |
| Berger Howard G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 498,405 | +25,992 | $18.64 |
| Berger Howard G | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.5.2026 | 25,992 | -25,992 | — |
| Sorensen Alma Gregory | Open Market Sale | 19.3.2026 | 9,554 | -9,554 | $61.84 |
| Sorensen Alma Gregory | Open Market Sale | 19.3.2026 | 5,346 | -5,346 | $62.82 |
| Sorensen Alma Gregory | Gift | 19.3.2026 | 7,000 | -7,000 | — |
| Sorensen Alma Gregory | Open Market Sale | 19.3.2026 | 100 | -100 | $63.59 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,940,889 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 10,425,092 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
68.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 72.0% 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