Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$4.59
▼ $0.07 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 09/30 01:43 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$45.67M
Day Range
$4.59 - $4.65
52-Week Range
$3.53 - $9.12
Beta
—
Next Earnings
03.11.2026
Support
$3.53
Resistance
$6.09
SCYX 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.
-44.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 13/27 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
🔴 Bearish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 449.9%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -78.0% (negative)
Fundamental
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
53
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $4.66
Evidence: Panic-selling score jumped from 0 to 28 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
74
Quality
63
Value
55
Momentum
36
Risk
46
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
39
Institutional
100
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 SCYNEXIS, Inc. has focused on its clinical and financial progress, particularly its pipeline advancements and investor engagement. The company announced a Phase 1 study for SCY-770, an AMPK activator for ADPKD, with topline data expected in Q3 2026, and plans to initiate a Phase 2 trial in Q4 2026. Additionally, it completed dosing in a Phase 1 study of its second-generation antifungal. Stock performance saw a 15.7% gain, while Guggenheim raised its price target to $33. The company also disclosed an inducement equity award for a new executive and upcoming participation in investor conferences.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SCYNEXIS, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
49
Psychology
34
Fundamentals
39
Technical
36
Valuation
55
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+10%
Market Narrative
54
Fundamental Reality
49
Narrative Gap
+5
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
SCYX’s dominant herding behavior reflects a market where participants align with peer underperformance rather than extreme sentiment. The FOMO and euphoria signals are muted, with neutral RSI and modest momentum, indicating cautious optimism—not reckless speculation. The narrative gap near equilibrium (-3) suggests no major disconnect between market perception and fundamentals. The key question is whether the relative outperformance of peers will sustain alignment or trigger rebalancing. Overconfidence may persist if price momentum continues decoupling from earnings growth.
Updated: 09/07/2026, 04:48 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Guggenheim analyst Vamil Divan maintains SCYNEXIS with a Buy and raises the price target from $24 to $33."
"SCYNEXIS reported quarterly earnings of $0.63 per share which beat the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.64) by 198.44%."
"Initiated a Phase 1 study of SCY-770... topline data are expected in Q3 2026 and are anticipated to inform dose selection for the planned Phase 2 study."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
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 — 25/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark contrast between Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score and Morgan Housel’s zero reflects a fundamental divide in priorities: Bagehot’s model prioritizes liquidity and resilience in crises, seeing SCYX as a bulwark against market stress, while Housel’s focus on volatility tolerance flags the stock as a potential disruptor for patient, long-term investors. Meanwhile, Peter Lynch’s high score suggests he’d see growth potential underpriced in the stock’s current valuation, aligning with his emphasis on overlooked opportunities, whereas Benjamin Graham’s low scores indicate it fails his strict defensive metrics—highlighting a clash between growth-driven and value-driven approaches. The middle-ground methodologies, like Howard Marks’ mixed verdict or Jack Schwager’s neutral stance, underscore uncertainty about whether the stock’s strengths (like Lynch’s growth thesis) outweigh its risks (like Loeb’s or Livermore’s warnings), creating a debate between optimism about future potential and caution about current market positioning.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
Attractive to a Defensive Graham Investor
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 94
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 73
Looks like a real 'buy and hold for a decade' candidate
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)
🟢 65
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 61
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)
🟡 60
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)
🟡 56
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
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)
🟡 53
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
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
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 uptrend with no defined trading range in the period examined.
High 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
100.0%
Operating Margin
-78.0%
Net Margin
-41.8%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-17.4%
ROA
-14.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.17
Cash
$21.26M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
7.04
Debt/Equity
0.00
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$9.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.69
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 6 positive, 14 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
ChartMill · 29.9.2026
Investing.com · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
InvestorsHub · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
MT Newswires · 10.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 10.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 26.8.2026
Yahoo · 25.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 25.8.2026
SCYNEXIS, Inc. (SCYX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 53/100, 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.
SCYX currently scores 53/100 (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.
SCYX'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: Revenue growth (last year): 449.9%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 61.4%; Net income growth: 59.6%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -78.0% (negative); Net margin: -41.8% (negative); ATR: 8.4% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SCYX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Burke Steven Keith | Grant/Award from Employer | 18.9.2026 | 5,750 | +5,750 | — |
| Subramanian Sanjay | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Subramanian Sanjay | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.9.2026 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| HASTINGS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| HASTINGS DAVID C | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| Tinmouth Brian Philippe | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| Macdonald Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| ANIDO ARMANDO | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| HANHAM ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| Tinmouth Brian Philippe | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| HANHAM ANN | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| Macdonald Guy | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| ANIDO ARMANDO | Grant/Award from Employer | 26.6.2026 | 2,875 | +2,875 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Open Market Purchase | 1.4.2026 | 108,695 | +108,695 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Open Market Purchase | 1.4.2026 | 108,695 | +108,695 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Open Market Purchase | 1.4.2026 | 1,357,126 | +108,695 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Open Market Purchase | 1.4.2026 | 108,695 | +108,695 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 391,333 | +391,333 | — |
| Sukenick Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 129,833 | +129,833 | — |
| Macleod ivor | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 129,833 | +129,833 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 1,244,431 | +391,333 | — |
| Macleod ivor | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 398,529 | +129,833 | — |
| Sukenick Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 29.1.2026 | 574,539 | +129,833 | — |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.10.2025 | 32,500 | +32,500 | $0.76 |
| Angulo Gonzalez David | Grant/Award from Employer | 17.10.2025 | 853,098 | +32,500 | $0.76 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
459,745 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 454,005 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
44.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 51.4% 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