Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$2.11
▼ $0.01 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/27 12:56 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$71.24M
Day Range
$2.07 - $2.13
52-Week Range
$1.92 - $3.92
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$1.92
Resistance
$2.36
RSSS is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-44.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/27 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $2.96 vs. price $2.11 (+40.1%)
Fair Value
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.83
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
51
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
11d ago · $1.99
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 7 to 46 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
54
Quality
58
Value
62
Momentum
36
Risk
34
Sentiment
62
Fundamental
54
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of Research Solutions, Inc. has centered on its strategic focus on AI-driven growth and a shift toward higher-margin subscription-based software revenue. The company is positioning itself as a leader in AI-powered research workflow platforms, with upcoming earnings reports (Q4 2026) and investor conference participation. Recent leadership changes, including the appointment of a new CFO, and analyst concerns about revenue and churn have also been noted. No direct financial performance or major product announcements are highlighted beyond its AI and SaaS expansion strategy.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Research Solutions, Inc. News trend score: 62. Reason: 7 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 5 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
5
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
42
Fundamentals
54
Technical
36
Valuation
62
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-8%
Market Narrative
35
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
-5
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
Market behavior suggests FOMO dominates, driven by positive momentum (+0.9% ROC), elevated volume (1.35x average), and neutral RSI (52). The narrative gap (-1) implies minor misalignment, but sentiment (68/100) and volatility (1.12x ATR) hint at cautious optimism. Overconfidence and euphoria are muted by the stock’s discount to DCF (-51%) and proximity to the 200-day average. The key question: Will momentum sustain despite valuation gaps, or will panic signals (volatility) escalate if sentiment weakens?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 07:30 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Research Solutions outlined its strategy to expand its scientific research platform through artificial intelligence integrations"
"continuing a multiyear shift toward higher-margin subscription software revenue"
"Research Solutions, Inc. will hold a conference call to discuss its financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year 2026"
"analysts flag revenue and churn"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 8D 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
Charles Mackay — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor) — 1/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of the more cycle‑ and growth‑oriented investors (Nelson, Mackay, Lynch, Veblen, Marks‑cycle), the model estimates the stock appears favorably positioned, with scores ranging from 73 to 100 and verdicts highlighting oversold cycles and uncapped growth. In contrast, value‑focused and risk‑averse frameworks such as Graham (defensive and enterprising), Fisher, Smith, and the efficient‑market view assign very low scores (0‑31) and cite failures to meet defensive criteria, quality signatures, or statistical cheapness. Mid‑range assessments from Schwager, Marks (general), and Loeb flag mixed or ambiguous prospects, reflecting their emphasis on edge, expectations, and capital risk. The divergence stems from each methodology’s weighting of cycle timing, growth versus intrinsic value, and liquidity or volatility risk, leading to a split between optimistic and skeptical conclusions.
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 95
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 79
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 76
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 74
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 73
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 54
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 36
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)
🔴 30
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 28
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 27
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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
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
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 10
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 4
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 1
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
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 (2 bullish · 6 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 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
51.9%
Operating Margin
7.4%
Net Margin
5.8%
EBITDA Margin
10.0%
ROE
13.6%
ROA
6.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.09
Cash
$12.63M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.83
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.11
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$2.96
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+40.1%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
8.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8.9% | $5.70M | $5.23M |
| 2 | 7.3% | $6.12M | $5.15M |
| 3 | 5.7% | $6.47M | $4.99M |
| 4 | 4.1% | $6.73M | $4.77M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $6.90M | $4.49M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$5.23M
Terminal Value
$108.84M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$70.74M
Enterprise Value
$95.37M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$95.37M
*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
$0.64
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$0.13
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 8 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
PR Newswire · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 12.9.2026
Yahoo · 12.9.2026
Motley Fool · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Moby · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
MarketBeat · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Zacks · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
ChartMill · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
PR Newswire · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Research Solutions, Inc (RSSS) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 51/100, 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.
RSSS currently scores 51/100 (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, RSSS's estimated fair value is $2.96, which is 40.1% above the current price of $2.11. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RSSS's technical score is 36/100, 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: $2.96 vs. price $2.11 (+40.1%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 125.0%; Net income growth: 123.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.83; Calmar: -0.07 (3y annualized return -3.5% / max drawdown 52.5%); Revenue growth (last year): -1.5%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RSSS.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cohen Sefton | Disposition to the Company | 31.7.2026 | 284,000 | -284,000 | $2.20 |
| Cohen Sefton | Disposition to the Company | 31.7.2026 | 75,933 | -284,000 | $2.20 |
| Cohen Sefton | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.3.2026 | 80,000 | +80,000 | $2.29 |
| Cohen Sefton | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.3.2026 | 359,933 | +80,000 | $2.29 |
| Kutil David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 19.12.2025 | 758 | -758 | $2.89 |
| Kutil David | Tax Withholding in Shares | 19.12.2025 | 29,242 | -758 | $2.89 |
| Kutil David | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.12.2025 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $3.00 |
| Kutil David | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.12.2025 | 30,000 | +30,000 | $3.00 |
| Regazzi John J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.11.2025 | 150,000 | +150,000 | $0.70 |
| Regazzi John J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.11.2025 | 150,000 | -150,000 | — |
| Regazzi John J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.11.2025 | 318,500 | +150,000 | $0.70 |
| Regazzi John J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 17.11.2025 | 0 | -150,000 | — |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.11.2025 | 75,000 | -75,000 | — |
| Murphy Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Cooperman Barbara J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.11.2025 | 75,000 | +75,000 | $0.70 |
| Gayron Kenneth L | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Regazzi John J | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 60,000 | +60,000 | — |
| Murphy Jeremy | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Cooperman Barbara J. | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| Regazzi John J | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 60,000 | +60,000 | — |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.11.2025 | 484,608 | +75,000 | $0.70 |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.11.2025 | 50,000 | +50,000 | — |
| MCPEAK MERRILL A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 12.11.2025 | 0 | -75,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
73,051 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 58,161 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
47.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 30.1% 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