Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$19.08
▲ $0.75 (+4.1%)
Market data updated: 09/30 10:11 PM
Fundamentals updated: 09/30/2026
News analyzed: 09/30/2026
Market Cap
$1.13B
Day Range
$18.38 - $19.81
52-Week Range
$6.50 - $49.64
Beta
—
Next Earnings
11.11.2026
Support
$17.52
Resistance
$26.00
-60.8% (1Y)
Strengths: 5/23 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
Insiders
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 423.6% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Daily volatility (ATR)
ATR: 7.0% of price
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
44
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
32
Quality
No data available
Value
50
Momentum
36
Risk
40
Sentiment
44
Fundamental
58
Institutional
0
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 Vor Biopharma Inc. has primarily focused on its financial performance and investor relations activities. The company reported wider-than-expected losses in Q2 2026, missing earnings estimates by a significant margin, which led to a stock price decline. Analysts, including Wedbush, adjusted their price targets while maintaining a neutral rating. Additionally, Vor Bio announced participation in upcoming investor conferences and disclosed inducement grants under Nasdaq listing rules, alongside a new board appointment.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Vor Biopharma Inc.. News trend score: 44. Reason: 4 of the last 20 articles are negative, versus 3 positive.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
31
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
38
Fundamentals
58
Technical
36
Valuation
50
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.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-7%
Market Narrative
30
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
-20
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for VOR is dominated by anchoring, as the stock’s proximity to resistance (0.5%) suggests traders are fixating on this psychological barrier. While euphoria (36) and overconfidence (18) hint at speculative overreach—driven by strong momentum (+6.2% ROC) and outperformance vs. fundamentals—these are secondary. The narrative gap (-3) is narrow, implying no major disconnect between price action and fundamentals. The key question: *Will traders break the resistance anchor, or will the stock stall near this level?*
Updated: 09/06/2026, 05:06 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"reported quarterly losses of $(1.16) per share which missed the analyst consensus estimate of $(0.70) by 65.71%"
"Vor Bio Reports Inducement Grant Under Nasdaq Listing Rule 5635(c)(4)"
"Vor Bio Appoints David Zaccardelli to Board of Directors"
"Vor Biopharma (VOR) Is Up 24.5% After Broad FTSE Russell Index Inclusion"
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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Morgan Housel — 0/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with some models seeing stability while others flag serious red flags. The Graham-based approaches (both conservative and enterprising) are stymied by insufficient data, leaving their verdicts inconclusive, though Bagehot’s liquidity-focused lens suggests it might weather financial stress. Meanwhile, Livermore’s trend-averse stance and Schwager’s disciplined wizards both steer clear, while Marks’ mixed but cautious view hints at a business with potential but already priced for perfection. On the other end, Fisher, Lynch, and Housel all dismiss it outright—either due to missing fundamentals or volatility that could unsettle patient investors—while Nelson’s cycle analysis warns of overbought conditions. The contrast between Bagehot’s resilience score and Loeb’s risk warning underscores how the same stock can appear either as a defensive bulwark or a speculative gamble, depending on whether the focus is on liquidity, valuation, or market psychology.
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟢 100
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 100
Strong liquidity — would likely survive a real credit squeeze
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 91
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)
🟢 85
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)
🟡 60
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)
🟡 57
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)
🟡 53
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 47
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 39
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🔴 34
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 0
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)
🔴 0
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: 25%
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 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 7 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.
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
—
Operating Margin
—
Net Margin
—
EBITDA Margin
—
ROE
423.6%
ROA
-150.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$70.50
Cash
$396.49M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
18.20
Debt/Equity
—
אין נתונים היסטוריים זמינים.
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$19.08
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$271.47
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
⚠️ Extreme
Model output is extreme — likely a data/model limitation for this stock, not a reliable fair-value read.
Year 1 Growth Rate
10.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10.0% | $-158.02M | $-144.97M |
| 2 | 8.1% | $-170.86M | $-143.81M |
| 3 | 6.3% | $-181.54M | $-140.18M |
| 4 | 4.4% | $-189.48M | $-134.23M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-194.22M | $-126.23M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-143.65M
Terminal Value
$-3.06B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-1.99B
Enterprise Value
$-2.68B
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-2.68B
*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
-$16.64
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
-$16.64
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 3 positive, 13 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 16.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
GlobeNewswire · 1.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
MT Newswires · 11.8.2026
MT Newswires · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 11.8.2026
Benzinga · 11.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 3.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 7.7.2026
Simply Wall St. · 30.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 8.6.2026
Motley Fool · 30.5.2026
Motley Fool · 30.5.2026
GlobeNewswire · 28.5.2026
Vor Biopharma Inc. (VOR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 44/100, 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.
VOR currently scores 44/100 (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.
VOR's technical score is 36/100, 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: Return on equity (ROE): 423.6% — strong; Current ratio: 18.20; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: ATR: 7.0% of price; Calmar: -0.22 (3y annualized return -21.3% / max drawdown 94.7%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: -107.2%.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for VOR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 2 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | $3.74 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,500 | -1,500 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 1,500 | +1,500 | $3.74 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 24.8.2026 | 0 | -1,500 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.7.2026 | 2,100,000 | +2,100,000 | $0.00 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.7.2026 | 2,100,000 | -2,100,000 | $5.00 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 213 | -213 | $19.75 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.7.2026 | 4,502,095 | +2,100,000 | $0.00 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Open Market Sale | 16.7.2026 | 4,501,882 | -213 | $19.75 |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Option Exercise (in-the-money) | 16.7.2026 | 7,900,000 | -2,100,000 | $5.00 |
| ZACCARDELLI DAVID | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.7.2026 | 42,658 | +42,658 | — |
| ZACCARDELLI DAVID | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.7.2026 | 42,658 | +42,658 | — |
| Joustra Wouter | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Beckman Daniella | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 53,283 | +53,283 | — |
| Namouni Fouad | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 56,549 | +56,549 | — |
| Cumbo Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 56,345 | +56,345 | — |
| RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P. | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Kalir Erez | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Detheux Michel | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Levin Andrew David | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| RA Capital Healthcare Fund LP | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Kalir Erez | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 57,162 | +57,162 | — |
| Beckman Daniella | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 53,283 | +53,283 | — |
| Cumbo Alexander | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 56,345 | +56,345 | — |
| Namouni Fouad | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.6.2026 | 56,549 | +56,549 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
7,904,520 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 7,666,676 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.0% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 38.1% 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