Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$7.52
▲ $0.24 (+3.3%)
Market data updated: 09/22 09:10 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/21/2026
News analyzed: 09/22/2026
Market Cap
$36.90M
Day Range
$7.30 - $7.76
52-Week Range
⚠️ Data anomaly
Beta
—
Next Earnings
26.11.2026
Support
$5.16
Resistance
$22.50
-99.9% (1Y)
Strengths: 2/14 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
🟡 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): 45.4%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 16.4% of price
Risk
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
47
Today
—
30D
—
90D
—
1Y
🕰️ Signal Timeline
What StockIQ actually saw for this stock, and what happened after each signal — real data, not a forecast.
today · $7.70
Evidence: Narrative Gap moved from 38 to 8 day-over-day
What happened after
Still awaiting outcome
🐂🐻 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
26
Risk
34
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
50
Institutional
48
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 Vision Marine Technologies Inc. has centered on significant corporate actions and innovation. The company filed a U.S. patent application for its E-Motion™ Charging Protection Technology, signaling advancements in its core technology. Additionally, Vision Marine consolidated its public listing on Nasdaq and announced a 1-for-10 reverse stock split, effective August 26, following a trading halt by Canadian regulators. These moves reflect strategic restructuring and market positioning.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Vision Marine Technologies Inc. - Common. News trend score: 80. Reason: 6 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 1 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)
39
Psychology
100
Fundamentals
50
Technical
26
Valuation
50
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.
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.
Price (3M)
-75%
Market Narrative
47
Fundamental Reality
39
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant loss aversion reflects a deep-rooted reluctance to revisit prior losses, amplified by the 77.6% three-month drop and subdued trading volume. Meanwhile, overconfidence (74) suggests some traders may be chasing momentum despite weak fundamentals, creating a tension between risk aversion and speculative behavior. The narrative gap (38) further indicates traders may be overestimating recovery potential relative to actual price action. The key question: Will traders prioritize cutting losses or hold for a rebound, given the disconnect between sentiment and fundamentals?
Updated: 09/08/2026, 08:39 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Vision Marine Technologies Files U.S. Patent Application to Advance E-Motion™ Charging Protection"
"Vision Marine Technologies to Implement 1-for-10 Reverse Stock Split"
"Vision Marine Technologies Enters Non-Binding Agreement to Be Acquired by Unnamed Company"
"Vision Marine Technologies Consolidates Public Market Listing on Nasdaq"
🧠 Market Brain events driving this
📈 5D Investor Psychology
Signal classification confidence: Medium (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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 83/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing potential while others flag red flags. Fisher and Lynch’s near-perfect scores reflect their inability to assess fundamentals or growth due to data gaps, but their frameworks would otherwise likely favor a deep-dive opportunity. In contrast, Marks (cycle) and Mackay’s moderate scores suggest early enthusiasm and crowd-building excitement, hinting at a speculative edge—but Schwager’s neutrality and Nelson’s mid-cycle caution temper that optimism. On the other end, Graham’s schools, Loeb, and Veblen’s low scores paint a picture of either overvaluation or reckless growth chasing, while Housel’s zero signals extreme volatility that could deter patient long-term holders. The efficient-market camp’s lukewarm stance underscores that the stock’s case for outperformance isn’t compelling enough to justify active picking over passive strategies.
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 100
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: 20%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 100
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: 15%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 83
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)
🟢 82
No obvious signs of crowd mania
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 82
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 58
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 54
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟡 50
Not enough balance-sheet data for a real Bagehot read
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 0%
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 50
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: 0%
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 30
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 25
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 21
Risk profile Loeb would flag as a real threat 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)
🔴 20
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: 30%
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 30%
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 a downtrend (1 bullish · 8 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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
—
ROA
—
ROIC
—
EPS
—
Cash
—
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
—
Debt/Equity
—
Not enough data to compute signals.
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) — 6 positive, 13 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Benzinga · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 3.9.2026
ChartMill · 27.8.2026
Benzinga · 27.8.2026
MT Newswires · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
PR Newswire · 25.8.2026
MT Newswires · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 24.8.2026
CNW Group · 24.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
MT Newswires · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 24.8.2026
Benzinga · 24.8.2026
PR Newswire · 19.8.2026
PR Newswire · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 18.8.2026
Benzinga · 17.8.2026
Vision Marine Technologies Inc. - Common (VMAR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 47/100, rated "Moderate" (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.
VMAR currently scores 47/100 (Moderate) 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.
VMAR's technical score is 26/100, 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): 45.4%; MACD histogram is positive — rising momentum.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 16.4% of price; Calmar: -0.99 (3y annualized return -99.3% / max drawdown 100.0%); Price is below the 50-day average.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for VMAR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 12 purchases and 13 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 34,746 | -34,746 | $1.25 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 0 | -34,746 | $1.25 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 11,359 | -11,359 | $1.25 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 24,983 | -11,359 | $1.25 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 7.7.2026 | 10,533 | +10,533 | $1.39 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 7.7.2026 | 36,342 | +10,533 | $1.39 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 6.7.2026 | 4,187 | +4,187 | $1.33 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 6.7.2026 | 25,809 | +4,187 | $1.33 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 2.7.2026 | 23,534 | +23,534 | $1.50 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 2.7.2026 | 21,622 | +23,534 | $1.50 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 24,800 | -24,800 | $2.10 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 1.7.2026 | 0 | -24,800 | $2.10 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 8,671 | -8,671 | $1.97 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 30.6.2026 | 22,888 | -8,671 | $1.97 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 5,087 | -5,087 | $1.99 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 29.6.2026 | 31,559 | -5,087 | $1.99 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 26.6.2026 | 876 | +876 | $1.98 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 25.6.2026 | 8,346 | +8,346 | $2.00 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 679 | -679 | $2.24 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 24.6.2026 | 27,424 | -679 | $2.24 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 23.6.2026 | 99 | +99 | $2.74 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 23.6.2026 | 28,103 | +99 | $2.74 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 22.6.2026 | 6,872 | +6,872 | $2.84 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Purchase | 22.6.2026 | 28,004 | +6,872 | $2.84 |
| HRT FINANCIAL LP | Open Market Sale | 18.6.2026 | 1,737 | -1,737 | $3.11 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
66,919 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 202,304 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 34.3% 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