Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$181.33
▼ $1.11 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/30 07:08 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$25.54B
Day Range
$180.65 - $185.00
52-Week Range
$83.12 - $194.54
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$141.88
Resistance
$194.54
SN is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+71.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 21/32 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Earnings per share (EPS) growth
Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 58.8%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $84.24 vs. price $181.33 (-53.5%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (79/100), but fair-value analysis scores this stock as relatively expensive (38/100) — the growth story and the current price aren't fully aligned.
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
72
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 · $182.41
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 27 to 52 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
2d ago · $177.74
Evidence: Euphoria score crossed 55 (now 59)
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 Investment Thesis
🐂 Bull Case
🐻 Bear Case
🔍 What Could Prove This Wrong
Not enough data yet to generate this synthesis.
This isn't a price-direction forecast — just a synthesis of real, already-computed data, and future conditions that could change the picture.
🕰️ StockIQ Time Machine
What did StockIQ know — and when? Pick a date from the real accumulated history.
As of September 25, 2026
Then
70
$176.94
Now
72
$181.33
What happened since
Signals detected by this date
No signals detected by this date
🧬 STOCK DNA
This stock's profile across 8 real dimensions — a research tool, not a recommendation
Growth
79
Quality
63
Value
38
Momentum
77
Risk
62
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
77
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 SharkNinja, Inc. has centered on its financial performance and market positioning. The company’s broad product portfolio—particularly in cooking, beauty, and core franchises—has driven growth, prompting an optimistic fiscal 2026 sales outlook. Analysts and brokerage recommendations have largely favored its stock as a strong investment, though skepticism remains about Wall Street’s optimism. Additionally, SharkNinja announced participation in the Goldman Sachs Global Consumer and Retail Conference, signaling continued industry engagement.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SharkNinja, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 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
61
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
42
Psychology
69
Fundamentals
77
Technical
77
Valuation
38
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, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
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 (3M)
+20%
Market Narrative
92
Fundamental Reality
42
Narrative Gap
+50
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant overconfidence—driven by a disconnect between weak price momentum and strong fundamental growth—suggests investors may be overestimating the stock’s intrinsic value. The narrative gap (56 vs. 42) further implies a divergence between perceived potential and observable performance. Key uncertainty lies in whether fundamentals can sustain this valuation premium or if momentum will eventually correct the overestimation. The absence of panic or herding reinforces a detached, speculative mindset, but the lack of volume spikes or extreme sentiment hints at cautious optimism rather than blind euphoria.
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:05 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"According to the average brokerage recommendation (ABR), one should invest in SharkNinja, Inc. (SN)."
"SharkNinja's Category Strength Fuels Growth Across Product Portfolio — SN's broad category growth, led by cooking, beauty and core franchises..."
"SharkNinja, Inc. (NYSE: SN) ... today announced that the Company will be participating in the Goldman Sachs Global Consumer and Retail Conference..."
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 14D 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
Peter Lynch — 88/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 9/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Samuel Armstrong Nelson and Peter Lynch both view the stock favorably, with Nelson focusing on a cycle that is closer to oversold (score 92) and Lynch highlighting that growth has not yet been fully priced (score 89). In contrast, the more defensive frameworks of Benjamin Graham produce low scores, as the stock fails Graham's safety criteria (score 25) and is not statistically cheap enough even for his enterprising variant (score 31). Meanwhile, investors like Philip Fisher and Thorstein Veblen assign solid but not exceptional scores (71 each), reflecting a middle ground where quality exists but does not meet the highest standards. The divergence arises because growth‑oriented and cycle‑aware methods emphasize momentum and future potential, whereas value‑oriented approaches stress cheapness and margin of safety, leading to widely different overall assessments.
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 88
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 71
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟢 71
Growth appears aligned with real value creation
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 68
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 67
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 64
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 63
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 62
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 40
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 31
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 30
Risk/valuation combination Marks would flag as a caution sign
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 25
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 24
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🔴 22
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🔴 20
Pattern consistent with a crowd delusion Mackay would flag
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 9
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 an uptrend (8 bullish · 3 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 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
49.0%
Operating Margin
14.4%
Net Margin
11.0%
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
26.2%
ROA
13.1%
ROIC
—
EPS
$4.97
Cash
$777.29M
Total Debt
$736.14M
Current Ratio
2.04
Debt/Equity
0.28
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 30.11.2023 | $1.080 |
| 29.11.2023 | $1.080 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$181.33
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$84.24
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-53.5%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
22.9%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 22.9% | $599.61M | $550.10M |
| 2 | 17.8% | $706.16M | $594.36M |
| 3 | 12.7% | $795.70M | $614.43M |
| 4 | 7.6% | $856.09M | $606.48M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $877.49M | $570.31M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$488.05M
Terminal Value
$13.84B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$8.99B
Enterprise Value
$11.93B
Net Debt
$-41.15M
Equity Value
$11.97B
*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
$18.96
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$15.76
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 6 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Business Wire · 29.9.2026
Investor's Business Daily · 28.9.2026
Zacks · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 26.9.2026
Yahoo · 26.9.2026
Business Wire · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 22.9.2026
Barrons.com · 21.9.2026
SharkNinja, Inc. (SN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 72/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
SN currently scores 72/100 (Strong) 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, SN's estimated fair value is $84.24, which is 53.5% below the current price of $181.33. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SN's technical score is 77/100, 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: Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 58.8%; Free cash flow growth: 58.0%; Net income growth: 59.9%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $84.24 vs. price $181.33 (-53.5%); CMF 20 days: -0.16; %K 91.8 — overbought.
Yes — SN has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 16 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 10,941 | -10,941 | $185.27 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 39,059 | -39,059 | $186.66 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 536,279 | -10,941 | $185.27 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 26.8.2026 | 497,220 | -39,059 | $186.66 |
| Feld Peter | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 5,328 | -5,000 | $180.00 |
| Feld Peter | Open Market Sale | 20.8.2026 | 5,000 | -5,000 | $180.00 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 42,378 | -18,721 | $184.58 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 42,223 | -155 | $185.00 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 40,766 | -1,457 | $186.12 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 155 | -155 | $185.00 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 18,721 | -18,721 | $184.58 |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 10.8.2026 | 1,457 | -1,457 | $186.12 |
| Barrocas Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 300,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Barrocas Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 1,696,659 | +200,000 | — |
| Barrocas Mark | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 1,617,959 | -78,700 | $185.52 |
| Shah Neil B. | Tax Withholding in Shares | 7.8.2026 | 90,766 | -19,340 | $185.52 |
| Shah Neil B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 110,106 | +40,000 | — |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 68,043 | -22,723 | $186.67 |
| Shah Neil B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 60,000 | -40,000 | — |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 61,099 | -6,944 | $187.07 |
| Quigley Adam | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 107 | -1,750 | $183.94 |
| Shah Neil B. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 40,000 | -40,000 | — |
| Barrocas Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 200,000 | +200,000 | — |
| Barrocas Mark | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 7.8.2026 | 200,000 | -200,000 | — |
| Shah Neil B. | Open Market Sale | 7.8.2026 | 22,723 | -22,723 | $186.67 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
6,977,083 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 6,499,132 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
73.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 74.2% 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