Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Information Technology · ·
$371.47
▲ $18.34 (+5.2%)
Market data updated: 09/19 05:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$58.08B
Day Range
$356.97 - $371.71
52-Week Range
$126.02 - $487.91
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.10.2026
Support
$296.82
Resistance
$444.17
TER is a stock from the Technology sector — Software, hardware, chip, and computing-services companies — revenue tied to the pace of innovation and upgrade cycles.
+212.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 19/33 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
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Leverage risk
Debt/equity: 0.07
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $43.65 vs. price $371.47 (-88.3%)
Fair Value
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
65
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
53
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
72
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
83
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING TER...
Recent media coverage of Teradyne highlights its strong performance driven by surging demand for its **UltraFLEXplus** product, particularly in AI-driven chip testing. Analysts note this growth strengthens its competitive position against rivals like KLA and Cohu, while its inclusion in the **American Century Value Fund** as a key contributor underscores investor confidence. Additionally, Teradyne’s stock rose alongside other chip-related firms following positive economic data, signaling broader optimism in the semiconductor sector.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Teradyne. News trend score: 100. Reason: 13 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
44
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
60
Fundamentals
83
Technical
72
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
89
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+52
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior suggests investors are exhibiting **overconfidence**—driven by a stark disconnect between price and fundamental or intrinsic valuation. The extreme narrative gap (36 points) further implies optimism outweighs tangible evidence, consistent with euphoria despite weak momentum. The key open question is whether this valuation premium reflects genuine growth potential or speculative overreach. The lack of panic or herding signals suggests confidence remains anchored in narrative rather than fundamentals.
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:22 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Teradyne [...] stocks jumped in the afternoon session [...] Teradyne [...] making waves on Friday as top gainers"
"TER's UltraFLEXplus demand is surging on AI-driven test needs, fueling chip-test growth"
📈 16D 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
Edgar Lawrence Smith — 75/100
🔴 Weakest match
Benjamin Graham — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
The stark divide in verdicts for TER reflects deep philosophical and methodological differences among these investors. Edgar Lawrence Smith and Walter Bagehot’s high scores—75 and 71—suggest they see either long-term fundamentals or resilience in liquidity, aligning with their buy-and-hold or crisis-survival frameworks. Meanwhile, the lower scores from Fisher (33), Lynch (26), and Graham (22) stem from stricter growth, valuation, or defensive criteria that this stock fails to meet, signaling a mismatch with their disciplined, rule-bound approaches. The middle-ground methodologies—like Marks (42) and Nelson (49)—caution that while the business may be sound, market expectations or timing risks could undermine returns, highlighting a tension between opportunity and risk. Even Livermore’s (25) and Schwager’s (13) outright rejections underscore how technical or trend-based strategies dismiss it entirely, contrasting sharply with the more fundamentalist or macro-driven perspectives.
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 75
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 71
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 61
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 56
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 51
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 43
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 41
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 34
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 32
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 31
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 29
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 26
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 22
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟢 Most indicators support an uptrend (8 bullish · 2 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.
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
58.2%
Operating Margin
20.4%
Net Margin
17.4%
EBITDA Margin
24.4%
ROE
19.8%
ROA
13.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$3.48
Cash
$293.75M
Total Debt
$200.00M
Current Ratio
1.75
Debt/Equity
0.07
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 4.9.2026 | $0.130 |
| 21.5.2026 | $0.130 |
| 20.5.2026 | $0.130 |
| 13.2.2026 | $0.130 |
| 12.2.2026 | $0.130 |
| 24.11.2025 | $0.120 |
| 23.11.2025 | $0.120 |
| 5.9.2025 | $0.120 |
| 4.9.2025 | $0.120 |
| 22.5.2025 | $0.120 |
| 21.5.2025 | $0.120 |
| 14.2.2025 | $0.120 |
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$371.47
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$43.65
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-88.3%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
1.1%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1.1% | $455.39M | $417.79M |
| 2 | 1.5% | $462.01M | $388.86M |
| 3 | 1.8% | $470.34M | $363.19M |
| 4 | 2.2% | $480.46M | $340.37M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $492.47M | $320.07M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$450.41M
Terminal Value
$7.77B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$5.05B
Enterprise Value
$6.88B
Net Debt
$-93.75M
Equity Value
$6.97B
*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
$17.50
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$13.92
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 13 positive, 4 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Benzinga · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
ChartMill · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
ChartMill · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
ChartMill · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Teradyne (TER) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 65/100, 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.
TER currently scores 65/100 (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, TER's estimated fair value is $43.65, which is 88.3% below the current price of $371.47. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TER's technical score is 72/100, 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: Debt/equity: 0.07; Current ratio: 1.75; Price is above the 50-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $43.65 vs. price $371.47 (-88.3%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 5.8% of price.
Yes — TER 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 15 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JOHNSON MERCEDES | Open Market Sale | 1.9.2026 | 167 | -167 | $341.30 |
| MATZ MARILYN | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $425.00 |
| Smith Gregory Stephen | Open Market Sale | 17.8.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | $425.00 |
| JOHNSON MERCEDES | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 166 | -166 | $358.15 |
| JOHNSON MERCEDES | Open Market Sale | 3.8.2026 | 6,531 | -166 | $358.15 |
| Smith Gregory Stephen | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | $356.31 |
| MATZ MARILYN | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $356.31 |
| MATZ MARILYN | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 16,241 | -1,200 | $356.31 |
| Smith Gregory Stephen | Open Market Sale | 15.7.2026 | 116,495 | -4,000 | $356.31 |
| JOHNSON MERCEDES | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 167 | -167 | $460.00 |
| JOHNSON MERCEDES | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 6,697 | -167 | $460.00 |
| Herweck Peter | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 63 | +63 | — |
| TUFANO PAUL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 116 | +116 | — |
| Henry Andrew Chisholm | Grant/Award from Employer | 25.6.2026 | 52 | +52 | — |
| Smith Gregory Stephen | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 4,000 | -4,000 | $423.03 |
| MATZ MARILYN | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 1,200 | -1,200 | $423.03 |
| MATZ MARILYN | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 17,441 | -1,200 | $423.03 |
| Smith Gregory Stephen | Open Market Sale | 15.6.2026 | 120,470 | -4,000 | $423.03 |
| MADDOCK ERNEST E | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 2 | +2 | — |
| TUFANO PAUL J | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 19 | +19 | — |
| Herweck Peter | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 4 | +4 | — |
| TUFANO PAUL J | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 65,732 | +19 | — |
| MADDOCK ERNEST E | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 10,267 | +2 | — |
| Herweck Peter | Other Transaction | 12.6.2026 | 16,138 | +4 | — |
| Hathout Jean Pierre | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.6.2026 | 174 | -174 | $392.62 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,024,720 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 8,027,285 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
54.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 61.3% 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