Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$364.27
▼ $1.93 (-0.5%)
Market data updated: 09/19 11:03 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/19/2026
News analyzed: 09/19/2026
Market Cap
$1.44T
Day Range
$360.75 - $370.90
52-Week Range
$297.38 - $498.83
Beta
—
Next Earnings
20.10.2026
Support
$297.38
Resistance
$413.16
TSLA is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-12.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 10/30 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
🟡 Mixed
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Free cash flow growth
Free cash flow growth: 73.7%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $32.20 vs. price $364.27 (-91.2%)
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.
Tesla (TSLA) receives an investorScore of 51, placing it in the MODERATE rating band. The score reflects a blend of relatively strong technical momentum—evidenced by a 72 technical score, price above the 50‑day average, positive MACD and a healthy RSI—against notably weak fundamentals and growth metrics. Margins, ROE and ROA are all in the low single digits, and recent revenue, EPS and net income have contracted, pulling the fundamental and growth scores down to 46 and 40 respectively. Valuation is a major drag, with a 33 score driven by a fair‑value estimate of $32.20 versus a market price near $354 and an astronomically high P/E of 352.9, suggesting the market is pricing in expectations far beyond current financial realities. News sentiment is mixed, yielding a middling 56 score: negative headlines around market reactions and a regulatory probe coexist with neutral product launches and broader positive discussions about AI‑driven growth. Quality is modest at 47, reflecting eroding operating margins despite a low debt‑to‑equity ratio, while risk sits at 54, indicating moderate volatility tempered by strong liquidity but offset by a historical drawdown of over 50%. Together, these dimensions balance out to a moderate overall assessment.
The technical score of 72 is supported by price above the 50‑day average, below the 200‑day average, a positive and rising MACD histogram, RSI at 66 and a %K at 98.8 indicating overbought conditions.
Technical indicators highlight short‑term price momentum and potential volatility, which can influence investor timing decisions.
Fundamental metrics score 46, with gross margin (18%), operating margin (4.6%), net margin (4.0%), ROE (4.6%) and ROA (2.8%) all described as weak.
Weak profitability and return ratios signal challenges in generating sustainable earnings from core operations.
Growth registers a score of 40, reflecting negative revenue growth (-2.9%), EPS decline (-47.1%) and net income drop (-46.5%), though free cash flow grew strongly (+73.7%).
Sustained declines in top‑line and earnings growth raise concerns about the company's future earnings trajectory.
Valuation is low at 33, driven by an estimated fair value of $32.20 versus a market price of $353.82 (-90.9% gap), a NAV of $23.17 and an extreme P/E of 352.9.
A large disparity between market price and intrinsic estimates suggests the stock may be significantly overvalued.
The news score of 56 reflects mixed coverage: negative market reaction and a federal investigation, positive commentary on AI value, neutral launch of Cybercab, and mixed signals from competitors.
News sentiment can quickly shift investor perception and impact short‑term price movements.
Quality scores 47, noting eroding operating margins but a favorable debt/equity ratio of 0.10.
Quality gauges the durability of earnings and balance‑sheet strength, influencing long‑term confidence.
Risk receives a 54 rating, with an ATR of 3.6% of price, low debt/equity, a solid current ratio of 2.16, and a Calmar ratio of 0.26 indicating past drawdowns of 53.8% against a 14.2% three‑year return.
Risk metrics combine volatility, liquidity and drawdown history to assess potential downside exposure.
StockIQ conclusion
Tesla's moderate score reflects a juxtaposition of strong short‑term technical signals and cash generation against weak profitability, negative growth trends, and a stark valuation mismatch. While balance‑sheet health and liquidity are solid, ongoing margin erosion and regulatory scrutiny add to the risk profile. Investors should weigh the momentum upside against the fundamental and valuation challenges when forming a view.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
48
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
6d ago · $365.44
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 45 to 18 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
15d ago · $352.11
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 55 to 20 day-over-day
What happened after
16d ago · $381.40
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 24 to 49 day-over-day
What happened after
16d ago · $381.10
Evidence: FOMO score jumped from 13 to 48 day-over-day
What happened after
🐂🐻 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
40
Quality
47
Value
33
Momentum
51
Risk
54
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
46
Institutional
0
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING TSLA...
Recent coverage of Tesla focused on its strong stock performance since S&P inclusion, with analysts projecting an $8.5 trillion market‑cap target. Elon Musk defended Autopilot’s role in a crash and promoted a “free fusion reactor in the sky” as future energy, while financial reports highlighted $2.3 billion daily profits as part of the Magnificent 7.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Tesla, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
24
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
49
Fundamentals
46
Technical
51
Valuation
33
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price, sentiment, and valuation keep confirming each other upward while the actual fundamentals deteriorate.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
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.
Price (3M)
-9%
Market Narrative
69
Fundamental Reality
37
Narrative Gap
+32
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The dominant **Confirmation Bias** (score: 61) reflects investors selectively validating narratives while ignoring stagnant fundamentals (revenue/margin flat). Overconfidence (54) and euphoria (36) stem from extreme valuation (+1043% DCF premium) and momentum, despite neutral RSI. FOMO (38) is present but muted by lack of extreme overbought conditions. The key open question: *Will traders double down on narrative-driven buying despite weak fundamentals?*
Updated: 09/09/2026, 09:27 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Ross Gerber recommends Tesla owners let TSLA ‘take the risk’ in Elon Musk’s Airbnb-like Robotaxi Program"
"Tesla FSD Supervised Gets Slovenia Approval"
"Goldman Sachs says AI execution matters more than low vehicle costs for Tesla's Cybercab"
"TSLA in focus as oil prices surge due to geopolitical tensions"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 22D 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 — 80/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 12/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
Based on Walter Bagehot's documented focus on liquidity, the model estimates the stock is very strong (score 80) and likely to survive a credit squeeze, while Charles Mackay's crowd‑man perspective sees a modest score of 76 and notes no obvious mania, indicating a more balanced outlook. Howard Marks’ cycle analysis rates the stock at 69, suggesting it is early‑to‑mid cycle and not overextended, whereas his principle‑based view scores only 58, highlighting mixed signals about expectations. Mid‑range scores from investors like Morgan Housel (64) and Gerald Loeb (61) still leave room for holding but warn of moderate risk, while the lower scores of Graham (27) and Lynch (22) reflect failures to meet defensive or growth‑at‑a‑reasonable‑price criteria. Finally, the very low scores from Fisher (33), Veblen (12) and the Schwager verdict indicate insufficient quality, excessive speculative growth, and a lack of disciplined setup, respectively, leading to divergent overall conclusions across the methodologies.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 80
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 67
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 67
The kind of quiet compounder a patient holder could actually stick with
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)
🟡 62
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)
🟡 59
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)
🟡 52
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 47
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 47
Mid-cycle — no strong signal either way
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 38
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
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 33
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
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 28
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 27
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 22
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 12
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
Based on the last 280 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🟡 Indicators are mixed — no clear bias (4 bullish · 4 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.
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
18.0%
Operating Margin
4.6%
Net Margin
4.0%
EBITDA Margin
4.6%
ROE
4.6%
ROA
2.8%
ROIC
—
EPS
$1.18
Cash
$16.51B
Total Debt
$8.15B
Current Ratio
2.16
Debt/Equity
0.10
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$364.27
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$32.20
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-91.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
5.6%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 5.6% | $6.57B | $6.03B |
| 2 | 4.8% | $6.89B | $5.80B |
| 3 | 4.1% | $7.16B | $5.53B |
| 4 | 3.3% | $7.40B | $5.24B |
| 5 | 2.5% | $7.58B | $4.93B |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$6.22B
Terminal Value
$119.60B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$77.73B
Enterprise Value
$105.26B
Net Debt
$-8.36B
Equity Value
$113.62B
*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
$23.28
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$23.17
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 8 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Benzinga · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 19.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
ChartMill · 18.9.2026
Tesla, Inc. (TSLA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
TSLA currently scores 48/100 (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, TSLA's estimated fair value is $32.20, which is 91.2% below the current price of $364.27. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
TSLA's technical score is 51/100, which currently reads as neutral — 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: Free cash flow growth: 73.7%; Debt/equity: 0.10; Current ratio: 2.16.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $32.20 vs. price $364.27 (-91.2%); Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.20 (3y annualized return 11.0% / max drawdown 53.8%).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for TSLA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 5 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taneja Vaibhav | Open Market Sale | 8.9.2026 | 2,605.75 | -2,605.75 | $360.13 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.9.2026 | 6,539 | -6,539 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.9.2026 | 6,539 | +6,539 | — |
| Musk Elon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.6.2026 | 303,960,630 | +303,960,630 | $23.34 |
| Musk Elon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.6.2026 | 17,531,857 | -17,531,857 | $404.66 |
| Musk Elon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.6.2026 | 303,960,630 | -303,960,630 | — |
| Musk Elon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.6.2026 | 727,704,534 | +303,960,630 | $23.34 |
| Musk Elon | Tax Withholding in Shares | 16.6.2026 | 710,172,677 | -17,531,857 | $404.66 |
| Musk Elon | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 16.6.2026 | 0 | -303,960,630 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 2,605.5 | -2,605.5 | $402.20 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Open Market Sale | 8.6.2026 | 22,039 | -2,606 | $402.20 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 6,538 | +6,538 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 6,538 | -6,538 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 24,645 | +6,538 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 5.6.2026 | 58,844 | -6,538 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 2,000 | -2,000 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $18.44 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 1,000 | -1,000 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Open Market Sale | 13.5.2026 | 3,000 | -3,000 | $450.00 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 2,000 | +2,000 | $18.22 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 19,107 | +1,000 | $18.44 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 21,107 | +2,000 | $18.22 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Open Market Sale | 13.5.2026 | 18,107 | -3,000 | $450.00 |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 2,390 | -1,000 | — |
| Taneja Vaibhav | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.5.2026 | 711,920 | -2,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
74,230,933 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 68,501,639 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
57.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 55.0% 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