Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Technology · ·
$6.05
▼ $0.05 (-0.8%)
Market data updated: 09/26 08:20 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/25/2026
News analyzed: 09/26/2026
Market Cap
$105.64M
Day Range
$6.02 - $6.17
52-Week Range
$5.65 - $22.17
Beta
—
Next Earnings
04.11.2026
Support
$5.65
Resistance
$8.19
SOUN is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
-65.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 7/28 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
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 99.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: -$6.18 vs. price $6.05 (-202.1%)
Fair Value
Signal tension
Growth scores strong (76/100), 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 2 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 2
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
45
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
76
Quality
58
Value
38
Momentum
16
Risk
48
Sentiment
86
Fundamental
35
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 SoundHound AI centers on its volatile stock performance and investor scrutiny. After a sharp 71% decline, the share rebounded 5% amid a broader software rally
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SoundHound AI, Inc.. News trend score: 86. Reason: 9 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
16
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
57
Psychology
17
Fundamentals
35
Technical
16
Valuation
38
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.
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-5%
Market Narrative
50
Fundamental Reality
57
Narrative Gap
-7
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
SOUN’s psychology profile is dominated by loss aversion, reflecting a 3-month downtrend (-8.8%) and subdued trading activity (0.95x average volume). The narrative gap (-8) hints at a disconnect between market sentiment (optimistic news, 80/100) and technical reality (neutral momentum, RSI 46). While panic selling and FOMO are present, they remain muted—likely due to weak momentum and volatility. The key question: *Will traders exit further to reduce losses, or will the gap between narrative and reality widen?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:12 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"SOUN's OASYS is speeding enterprise AI from demos to contracts, with record pilot conversions"
"The combination brings LivePerson into SoundHound AI, shifting the investor question to whether two conversational-AI businesses can create a stronger platform together"
"Sales grew 45% year over year last quarter, an acquisition is about to add more -- and the losses are shrinking far more slowly"
"Beating analysts' Q2 206 estimates wasn't the only catalyst for this AI stock's rise last month"
📈 6D 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 10/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on his documented principles, the model estimates that Walter Bagehot and Peter Lynch view SOUN favorably because of its strong liquidity and rapid growth, while Samuel Armstrong Nelson highlights a favorable cycle position. In contrast, Benjamin Graham’s defensive criteria and enterprising rules deem the stock statistically expensive and not a clear hold, a view echoed by Gerald M. Loeb’s moderate‑risk assessment. Mid‑range scores from Howard Marks, Philip Fisher, and Jack Schwager reflect mixed signals about quality versus expectations, and lower scores from Morgan Housel and Jesse Livermore point to volatility and negative trend concerns. Overall, the divergence stems from each methodology’s focus on liquidity, growth, valuation, cycle timing, and risk tolerance, leading to a wide spread of conclusions about the same stock.
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 87
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)
🟢 78
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)
🟡 63
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 62
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 56
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 49
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 43
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 41
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 39
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)
🔴 33
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 10
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 286 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 9 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.
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
42.4%
Operating Margin
-13.8%
Net Margin
-8.3%
EBITDA Margin
-13.2%
ROE
-3.0%
ROA
-2.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.03
Cash
$248.49M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.59
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$6.05
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$6.18
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-202.1%
🔴 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% | $-123.91M | $-113.67M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-147.91M | $-124.49M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-168.25M | $-129.92M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-181.92M | $-128.88M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-186.47M | $-121.19M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-99.12M
Terminal Value
$-2.94B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.91B
Enterprise Value
$-2.53B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-2.53B
*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
$1.13
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.39
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 8 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.9.2026
Motley Fool · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
MT Newswires · 24.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Zacks · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Zacks · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Benzinga · 22.9.2026
GuruFocus.com · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Zacks · 17.9.2026
SoundHound AI, Inc. (SOUN) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, 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.
SOUN currently scores 45/100 (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, SOUN's estimated fair value is -$6.18, which is 202.1% below the current price of $6.05. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
SOUN's technical score is 16/100, 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): 99.4%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 73.1%; Net income growth: 96.0%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: -$6.18 vs. price $6.05 (-202.1%); Operating margin: -13.8% (negative); Net margin: -8.3% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for SOUN.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 7 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SROKA DIANA | Open Market Sale | 17.9.2026 | 171,719 | -1,552 | $6.11 |
| EMAMI MAJID | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 834,253 | -38,730 | $6.33 |
| MOHAJER KEYVAN | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 3,684,947 | -137,290 | $6.33 |
| HOM JAMES MING | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 1,105,555 | -38,730 | $6.33 |
| ZAGORSEK MICHAEL | Open Market Sale | 15.9.2026 | 2,600,231 | -71,113 | $6.33 |
| Collins John DeNeen | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 50,573 | +50,573 | — |
| Collins John DeNeen | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 1,050,573 | +1,000,000 | — |
| Collins John DeNeen | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 1,000,000 | +1,000,000 | — |
| Collins John DeNeen | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.9.2026 | 50,573 | +50,573 | — |
| SROKA DIANA | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 173,271 | -1,343 | $7.15 |
| SROKA DIANA | Open Market Sale | 27.8.2026 | 1,343 | -1,343 | $7.15 |
| Ball Eric R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | — |
| SROKA DIANA | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | — |
| HOM JAMES MING | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 400,000 | +400,000 | — |
| ZAGORSEK MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 250,000 | +250,000 | — |
| MOHAJER KEYVAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 1,500,000 | +1,500,000 | — |
| MOHAJER KEYVAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 375,000 | +375,000 | — |
| EMAMI MAJID | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 400,000 | +400,000 | — |
| ZAGORSEK MICHAEL | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 750,000 | +750,000 | — |
| MARCUS LAWRENCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 4,000 | +4,000 | — |
| MARCUS LAWRENCE | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 116,631 | +4,000 | — |
| Ball Eric R. | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 153,500 | +4,000 | — |
| MOHAJER KEYVAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 3,447,237 | +1,500,000 | — |
| MOHAJER KEYVAN | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 3,822,237 | +375,000 | — |
| EMAMI MAJID | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.7.2026 | 872,983 | +400,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
165,088,496 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 156,869,087 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 62.7% 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