Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$5.51
▼ $0.00 (-0.0%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$287.81M
Day Range
$5.51 - $5.51
52-Week Range
$5.09 - $7.31
Beta
—
Next Earnings
17.11.2026
Support
$5.51
Resistance
$5.51
-46.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 3/17 factors positiveRisk: High
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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Net income growth
Net income growth: 545.5%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 0.02
Risk
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
41
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
58
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
24
Risk
42
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
37
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
11
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
37
Technical
24
Valuation
50
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
Price (3M)
+0%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-6
Signal classification confidence: Low (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
Morgan Housel — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — NaN/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
UCFI’s stark divide in methodology verdicts reveals a clash between patient, qualitative investors and those reliant on quantitative or cyclical signals. Morgan Housel and Charles Mackay’s near-perfect scores reflect their focus on long-term fundamentals and avoiding crowd-driven euphoria, suggesting the stock aligns with steady, compounding growth. Meanwhile, Jack Schwager and Howard Marks (both cycle-aware) see disciplined setups with manageable risk, though Marks’ slightly lower score hints at cautious optimism. In contrast, Benjamin Graham’s zero score and Bagehot’s liquidity warning underscore deep structural concerns—likely tied to thin trading volumes or weak financials—while Peter Lynch and Philip Fisher’s mid-range scores stem from insufficient data to apply their growth/quality frameworks. The split highlights whether UCFI’s appeal lies in narrative-driven patience (Housel/Mackay) or if its risks outweigh its rewards for those prioritizing liquidity, valuation, or cyclical timing.
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟢 100
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 96
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 70
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
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)
🟢 70
Looks early-to-mid cycle, not overextended
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)
🟢 67
Risk appears reasonably priced — no obvious cycle-timing red flag
Key question
What is the market probably misunderstanding about the risk here?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 64
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)
🟡 52
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
Not enough fundamentals data for a real Fisher read
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
Not enough growth data for a real Lynch read
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 15
Not enough dividend/growth data for a real Smith read
Key question
Is this a stock I'd be happy to hold and forget about for a decade?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 25%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 0
Not enough balance-sheet/valuation data for a real Graham read
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 NaN
Weak case — Malkiel/Bogle would say a low-cost index is the simpler bet
Key question
Do I actually have an edge here, or do I just think I do?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 33
Pattern Veblen would flag as growth pursued for its own sake
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 0
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟡 NaN
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
🔴 0
Not enough valuation data for a real Enterprising-Graham read
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 20%
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 (1 bullish · 8 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$5.51
Range Bottom
$5.51
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
-33.2%
ROA
1.9%
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
$454
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
0.02
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
—
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 0 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 0 articles.
No recent articles found for this stock.
CN Healthy Food Tech Group Corp. (UCFI) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 41/100, rated "Weak" (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
UCFI currently scores 41/100 (Weak) across the categories we measure (a partial score — based on only 6 of 7 categories, some data is currently unavailable). StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — use this as one data point in your own research, not as investment advice.
UCFI's technical score is 24/100, 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: Net income growth: 545.5%; ATR: 0.0% of price; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Current ratio: 0.02; Calmar: -0.30 (3y annualized return -20.4% / max drawdown 67.3%); Return on equity (ROE): -33.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for UCFI.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 6 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jiang Zhenjun | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 47,689,349 | +47,689,349 | — |
| Caragol William J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 80,000 | +80,000 | — |
| Caragol William J | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 580,000 | +500,000 | $10.10 |
| Bengochea Jose Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 1,932,000 | +1,932,000 | — |
| Bengochea Jose Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 580,000 | +500,000 | $10.10 |
| Bengochea Jose Antonio | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.9.2025 | 2,533,500 | +2,533,500 | $0.08 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
220,961 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 220,961 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
Full breakdown of every data type and its source: Data Sources · Methodology