Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$14.47
▼ $0.35 (-2.4%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$267.36M
Day Range
$14.33 - $14.68
52-Week Range
$12.57 - $27.95
Beta
—
Next Earnings
19.10.2026
Support
$12.57
Resistance
$23.59
USNA is a stock from the Healthcare sector — Pharmaceuticals, biotech, medical devices, and health insurance — less sensitive to economic cycles, but exposed to regulation and FDA approvals.
-47.5% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/27 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
Liquidity risk
Current ratio: 2.24
Risk
Biggest negative driver
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $6.48 vs. price $14.47 (-55.2%)
Fair Value
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
40
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
34
Quality
42
Value
38
Momentum
31
Risk
40
Sentiment
50
Fundamental
50
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.
Recent media coverage of USANA Health Sciences has focused on mixed investor sentiment and strategic shifts. Analysts have questioned its valuation and cash management, with some warning about potential reinvestment risks despite its cash-generating model. The company also introduced Protein Pop Balance, a new prebiotic soda with protein and fiber, signaling product innovation. CEO Kevin Guest’s call to prioritize service over self further shaped discussions, though broader financial concerns—including downward price target adjustments and earnings scrutiny—dominated market commentary.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about USANA Health Sciences, Inc.. News trend score: 50. Reason: The mix of positive and negative articles is balanced — 4 vs. 4 out of the last 20 articles.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
80
Fundamentals
50
Technical
31
Valuation
38
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
Price (3M)
-33%
Market Narrative
51
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+15
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
👥 What the crowd believes
"USANA Introduces 3-in-1 Protein, Creatine, and Electrolyte Drink Mix"
"USANA CEO Kevin Guest Calls on People to Find a Way to Serve Others, Then Act"
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle) — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some seeing it as a cyclical opportunity while others dismiss it outright. Howard Marks’ *market cycle* approach (95) and Samuel Nelson’s (78) view it as favorably positioned near the cycle’s bottom, suggesting it may be undervalued relative to broader trends. Even Charles Mackay (85) finds no crowd-driven mania, while Benjamin Graham’s *enterprising investor* (69) acknowledges a discount—though not deep enough for his strict criteria. Conversely, the most bearish frameworks—like Morgan Housel (0) and Philip Fisher (15)—reject it entirely, with Housel flagging volatility as a red flag for patient investors and Fisher seeing no quality/growth foundation. Meanwhile, the middle ground—from Walter Bagehot’s (63) cautious liquidity note to Jesse Livermore’s (23) trend-based rejection—reflects a stock that’s neither a slam dunk nor a clear mispricing, leaving room for interpretation depending on whether one prioritizes macro positioning, defensive metrics, or fundamental quality.
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 95
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 85
No obvious signs of crowd mania
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)
🟢 78
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 69
Some discount, but not the deep 'net-net' bargain Graham's enterprising bar sets
Key question
Is the stock statistically cheap enough to justify the extra risk?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 63
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 48
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 42
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 38
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 34
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 23
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 21
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🔴 17
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 15
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🔴 0
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
Based on the last 289 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (1 bullish · 6 bearish · 3 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.
Medium 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
78.3%
Operating Margin
4.0%
Net Margin
1.2%
EBITDA Margin
7.6%
ROE
2.0%
ROA
1.4%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.58
Cash
$158.38M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
2.24
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$14.47
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$6.48
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
-55.2%
🔴 Appears expensive relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-2.2%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -2.2% | $8.34M | $7.65M |
| 2 | -1.1% | $8.25M | $6.94M |
| 3 | 0.1% | $8.26M | $6.38M |
| 4 | 1.3% | $8.37M | $5.93M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $8.58M | $5.57M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$8.53M
Terminal Value
$135.24M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$87.90M
Enterprise Value
$120.36M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$120.36M
*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
$28.70
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$14.11
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 4 positive, 12 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 30.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
PR Newswire · 3.9.2026
PR Newswire · 1.9.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
StockStory · 31.8.2026
Fintel · 28.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
StockStory · 25.8.2026
StockStory · 18.8.2026
PR Newswire · 17.8.2026
StockStory · 16.8.2026
StockStory · 13.8.2026
Motley Fool · 12.8.2026
StockStory · 10.8.2026
Motley Fool · 9.8.2026
MarketBeat · 9.8.2026
Simply Wall St. · 6.8.2026
ChartMill · 5.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 5.8.2026
USANA Health Sciences, Inc. (USNA) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 40/100, rated "Weak". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
USNA currently scores 40/100 (Weak) 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, USNA's estimated fair value is $6.48, which is 55.2% below the current price of $14.47. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
USNA's technical score is 31/100, 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: Current ratio: 2.24; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum; Gross margin: 78.3% — strong.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Estimated fair value: $6.48 vs. price $14.47 (-55.2%); Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.1% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for USNA.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 1,166 | +1,166 | — |
| Benedict Peter | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 598 | +598 | — |
| Benedict Peter | Tax Withholding in Shares | 25.7.2026 | 176 | -176 | $21.32 |
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 1,166 | -1,166 | — |
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Tax Withholding in Shares | 25.7.2026 | 518 | -518 | $21.32 |
| Benedict Peter | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 598 | -598 | — |
| Benedict Peter | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 598 | +598 | — |
| Benedict Peter | Tax Withholding in Shares | 25.7.2026 | 422 | -176 | $21.32 |
| Benedict Peter | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 38,004 | -598 | — |
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 3,989 | +1,166 | — |
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 25.7.2026 | 39,426 | -1,166 | — |
| Armstrong Kathryn Michelle | Tax Withholding in Shares | 25.7.2026 | 3,471 | -518 | $21.32 |
| Ding Xia | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 604 | -604 | $20.92 |
| FULLER GILBERT A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| WOOD TIMOTHY E | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| FULLER GILBERT A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | +1,632 | — |
| Pelosi Peggie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| Winssinger Frederic J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| Pelosi Peggie | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 935 | -935 | $20.92 |
| Nixon J Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | +1,632 | — |
| WOOD TIMOTHY E | Tax Withholding in Shares | 23.7.2026 | 408 | -408 | $20.92 |
| Ding Xia | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| Pelosi Peggie | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | +1,632 | — |
| Nixon J Scott | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | -1,632 | — |
| Fleming John Turman | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 23.7.2026 | 1,632 | +1,632 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
754,694 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 645,715 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
51.7% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 51.7% 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