Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$4.66
▼ $0.07 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/27 12:02 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/27/2026
News analyzed: 09/27/2026
Market Cap
$193.82M
Day Range
$4.63 - $4.78
52-Week Range
$4.48 - $13.22
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$4.63
Resistance
$7.44
RXST 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.
-48.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 6/29 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is stable or improving over time
Quality
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$12.08 vs. price $4.66 (-359.2%)
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
35
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
58
Value
43
Momentum
10
Risk
40
Sentiment
62
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 RxSight, Inc. has centered on its strategic partnership with Alcon, announced in July 2026, to co-develop post-operatively adjustable intraocular lenses (PCIOLs) using RxSight’s light-adjustable technology. The Q2 2026 earnings call highlighted a 19% decline in product sales due to competitive pressure, though Alcon’s partnership revenue helped offset losses. Analysts like Stifel and UBS maintained neutral ratings with adjusted price targets, while some investors noted potential long-term upside despite short-term challenges.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about RxSight, 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
38
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
40
Psychology
87
Fundamentals
30
Technical
10
Valuation
43
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Price (3M)
-13%
Market Narrative
37
Fundamental Reality
40
Narrative Gap
-3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant herding behavior in RXST reflects a peer-driven pullback, with traders aligning moves rather than acting independently. Confirmation bias persists, as the narrative-reality gap widens despite deteriorating fundamentals. Overconfidence is muted but present, as price momentum slightly exceeds weak earnings growth. The key question remains whether this coordinated decline signals a broader sector rotation or a narrative-driven correction. The absence of extreme volatility or RSI suggests no panic, but the gap between perception and performance may sustain herding dynamics.
Updated: 09/05/2026, 06:28 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Alcon partnership revenue offsets 19% product sales decline from competitive pressure."
"non-exclusive pact to co-develop post-operatively adjustable pseudophakic intraocular lenses (PCIOLs)"
"product sales drop 19%, shares slide 4.6% after hours despite narrower loss"
"Stifel maintains Hold on RxSight, lowers price target to $7"
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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 16/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on the documented principles of each investor, the model estimates that defensive value‑oriented frameworks like Graham’s Defensive Investor, Mackay’s crowd‑mania filter, and Nelson’s cycle analysis all rate RXST very highly, reflecting a deep discount and a favorable position away from overbought conditions. In contrast, more risk‑aware or growth‑focused lenses such as Loeb, Fisher, Lynch, and especially Livermore assign low scores, flagging capital‑risk threats, insufficient quality, and a negative price trend. Mid‑range scores from Marks, Bagehot, and Schwager indicate a mixed view, suggesting the stock is reasonably priced but lacks a clear edge or strong liquidity cushion. Consequently, while value‑centric methods see RXST as an attractive candidate, many modern or momentum‑oriented approaches remain skeptical, leading to divergent overall assessments.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 98
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
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 93
Deep statistical discount — a real Enterprising Investor candidate
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)
🟢 88
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 73
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
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 65
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 65
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 42
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)
🟡 39
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)
🔴 33
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 32
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 20
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 16
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
Based on the last 285 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 10 bearish · 1 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
76.6%
Operating Margin
-35.8%
Net Margin
-29.0%
EBITDA Margin
-33.4%
ROE
-14.1%
ROA
-12.5%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.95
Cash
$19.95M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
10.95
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$4.66
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$12.08
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-359.2%
🔴 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% | $-24.18M | $-22.18M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-28.86M | $-24.29M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-32.83M | $-25.35M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-35.50M | $-25.15M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-36.38M | $-23.65M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-19.34M
Terminal Value
$-573.74M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-372.89M
Enterprise Value
$-493.50M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-493.50M
*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
$6.75
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$6.75
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 7 positive, 8 neutral, 5 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Benzinga · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.8.2026
Insider Monkey · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 13.8.2026
Yahoo · 12.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
Benzinga · 10.8.2026
Benzinga · 6.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 6.8.2026
GuruFocus.com · 6.8.2026
MarketBeat · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.8.2026
ChartMill · 5.8.2026
Zacks · 5.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 5.8.2026
Zacks · 3.8.2026
Zacks · 29.7.2026
MT Newswires · 28.7.2026
RxSight, Inc. (RXST) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 35/100, 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.
RXST currently scores 35/100 (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, RXST's estimated fair value is -$12.08, which is 359.2% below the current price of $4.66. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
RXST's technical score is 10/100, 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: Operating margin is stable or improving over time; Current ratio: 10.95; Gross margin: 76.6% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$12.08 vs. price $4.66 (-359.2%); Operating margin: -35.8% (negative); Net margin: -29.0% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for RXST.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weinberg Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.9.2026 | 0 | -35,168 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 15.9.2026 | 235,516 | +35,168 | $4.34 |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 93,984 | +93,984 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 73,960 | +73,960 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Disposition to the Company | 5.9.2026 | 0 | -98,367 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Disposition to the Company | 5.9.2026 | 0 | -87,437 | — |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 161,654 | +161,654 | — |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 254,751 | +254,751 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 65,742 | +65,742 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 32,258 | +32,258 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 59,483 | +59,483 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 104,347 | +104,347 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 32,258 | +32,258 | — |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 96,129 | +96,129 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 93,984 | +93,984 | — |
| Weinberg Eric | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 82,608 | +82,608 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 59,483 | +59,483 | — |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Disposition to the Company | 5.9.2026 | 0 | -338,819 | — |
| Wilterding Mark | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 258,770 | +258,770 | — |
| Wilterding Mark | Disposition to the Company | 5.9.2026 | 0 | -258,770 | — |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.9.2026 | 173,913 | +173,913 | — |
| Goldshleger Ilya | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 81,509 | -2,041 | $6.96 |
| Weinberg Eric | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 200,348 | -2,041 | $6.96 |
| Wilterding Mark | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 25,049 | -7,765 | $6.96 |
| Kurtz Ronald M MD | Open Market Sale | 2.9.2026 | 71,775 | -5,100 | $6.96 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,975,689 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 3,875,674 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
40.1% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 47.1% 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