Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$11.16
▲ $0.43 (+4.0%)
Market data updated: 09/30 02:43 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$2.79B
Day Range
$10.84 - $11.35
52-Week Range
$4.87 - $26.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$7.76
Resistance
$14.19
+24.1% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/32 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.08
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$40.65 vs. price $11.16 (-464.4%)
Fair Value
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
47
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
45
Quality
47
Value
38
Momentum
52
Risk
54
Sentiment
92
Fundamental
26
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 coverage of Redwire Corporation centers on its volatile stock performance and strategic shift toward defense technologies. Analysts highlight a significant recent decline followed by short‑term rebounds, while emphasizing the company’s investment in phased‑array systems as a potential driver of defense growth. Overall, the media focus is on investor sentiment, valuation questions, and how the new defense‑oriented bets could shape Redwire’s future prospects.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Redwire Corporation. News trend score: 92. Reason: 11 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
20
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
35
Psychology
33
Fundamentals
26
Technical
52
Valuation
38
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
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)
-1%
Market Narrative
68
Fundamental Reality
35
Narrative Gap
+33
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s extreme loss aversion (92) reflects deep discomfort with RDW’s 42.9% three-month drop, outweighing any FOMO or euphoria. The muted volume (0.79x average) and neutral RSI (41) suggest hesitation rather than panic, but the narrative gap (+14) hints at selective attention to positive headlines. The key question: will traders prioritize fundamental deterioration (flat EPS, shrinking margins) or emotional resistance to further losses? Overconfidence and anchoring are absent, leaving loss aversion as the primary driver—until volume or sentiment shifts decisively.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 05:56 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Redwire's Phased-Array Bet Could Broaden Its Defense Tech Opportunity"
"RDW After a 30.5% 3-Month Drop Is the Sell-Off an Opportunity Yet?"
"Redwire (RDW) Backs Phased Array Antennas For Warfighter And Space Network Growth"
"Redwire Stock Rocketed 24% Higher in August"
📈 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
Benjamin Graham — 77/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock divides historical methodologies sharply, with some seeing strong potential while others dismiss it outright. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score and verdict suggest the stock’s cycle position is near oversold, aligning with his contrarian, momentum-driven approach. Meanwhile, Benjamin Graham’s defensive investor would find it attractive, though his enterprising counterpart is far more cautious, flagging it as merely a modest discount rather than a deep bargain. On the opposite end, Fisher, Veblen, and Livermore all reject it outright—Fisher for lacking his signature quality/growth traits, Veblen for spotting what he’d call wasteful growth, and Livermore for running against his trend-following rule. The middle ground is occupied by Marks and Schwager, who acknowledge mixed signals: Marks sees a solid business but warns of elevated expectations, while Schwager finds no decisive edge. Even the efficient-market camp and Housel’s volatility concerns underscore the stock’s lack of clear long-term appeal, contrasting sharply with Nelson’s and Graham’s more bullish signals.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 77
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)
🟡 64
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 64
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 56
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 52
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 50
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)
🟡 49
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 47
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 46
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 46
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 43
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 36
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 18
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 10
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
Based on the last 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 5 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
5.2%
Operating Margin
-68.5%
Net Margin
-67.6%
EBITDA Margin
-58.8%
ROE
-21.4%
ROA
-15.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$2.28
Cash
$94.47M
Total Debt
$85.20M
Current Ratio
1.62
Debt/Equity
0.08
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$11.16
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$40.65
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-464.4%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
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% | $-238.51M | $-218.82M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-284.72M | $-239.65M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-323.87M | $-250.09M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-350.19M | $-248.08M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-358.94M | $-233.29M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-190.81M
Terminal Value
$-5.66B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-3.68B
Enterprise Value
$-4.87B
Net Debt
$-9.27M
Equity Value
$-4.86B
*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
$8.87
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.46
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 5 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 30.9.2026
Yahoo · 30.9.2026
Benzinga · 30.9.2026
Yahoo · 30.9.2026
Benzinga · 30.9.2026
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Benzinga · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Redwire Corporation (RDW) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, 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.
RDW currently scores 47/100 (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, RDW's estimated fair value is -$40.65, which is 464.4% below the current price of $11.16. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RDW's technical score is 52/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.08; Current ratio: 1.62; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$40.65 vs. price $11.16 (-464.4%); Operating margin: -68.5% (negative); Net margin: -67.6% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RDW.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AE RED HOLDINGS, LLC | Open Market Sale | 23.9.2026 | 147,984 | -929,435 | $11.34 |
| Edmunds Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 76,364 | +76,364 | — |
| Edmunds Chris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 1,160 | -1,160 | $9.74 |
| Edmunds Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 76,364 | +76,364 | — |
| Gold Michael N. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 63,637 | +63,637 | — |
| Gold Michael N. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 3,777 | -3,777 | $9.74 |
| Gold Michael N. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 63,637 | +63,637 | — |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 190,637 | +190,637 | — |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 12,631 | -12,631 | $9.74 |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 190,637 | +190,637 | — |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 2,271 | -2,271 | $9.74 |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 45,455 | +45,455 | — |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 45,455 | +45,455 | — |
| Edmunds Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 202,127 | +76,364 | — |
| Edmunds Chris | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 200,967 | -1,160 | $9.74 |
| Edmunds Chris | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 76,364 | +76,364 | — |
| Gold Michael N. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 268,643 | +63,637 | — |
| Gold Michael N. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 264,866 | -3,777 | $9.74 |
| Gold Michael N. | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 63,637 | +63,637 | — |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 822,627 | +190,637 | — |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 809,996 | -12,631 | $9.74 |
| Cannito Peter Anthony Jr | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 190,637 | +190,637 | — |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 134,105 | +45,455 | — |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 14.7.2026 | 131,834 | -2,271 | $9.74 |
| Futch Aaron Michael | Grant/Award from Employer | 14.7.2026 | 45,455 | +45,455 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
42,660,715 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 40,196,707 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
45.3% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 45.6% 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