Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Health Care · ·
$421.63
▲ $2.99 (+0.7%)
Market data updated: 09/19 12:01 AM
Fundamentals updated: 09/18/2026
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
$41.42B
Day Range
$420.86 - $430.64
52-Week Range
$282.77 - $431.78
Beta
—
Next Earnings
02.11.2026
Support
$345.21
Resistance
$431.78
WAT 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.
+37.7% (1Y)
Strengths: 21/31 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
🟢 Bullish
Technical Trend
🟢 Bullish
Insiders
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Return on equity (ROE)
Return on equity (ROE): 25.1% — strong
Fundamental
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin stability
Operating margin is eroding over time
Quality
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
72
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
56
Quality
47
Value
45
Momentum
90
Risk
54
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
86
Institutional
80
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
SCANNING WAT...
Recent media coverage of Waters Corporation has centered on its strong financial performance and shifting market perception. The company reported robust Q2 2026 earnings, raised full-year guidance for organic revenue growth and adjusted earnings, and saw a leadership transition with Tina Wu taking over a key division. Analysts debate whether its stock remains undervalued despite a 53% three-year gain, highlighting tensions between cash flow strength and valuation based on sales multiples. Price targets were also raised by analysts like Baird and HSBC.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Waters Corporation. News trend score: 100. Reason: 14 of the last 20 articles are positive, versus 3 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
30
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
37
Psychology
54
Fundamentals
86
Technical
90
Valuation
45
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
The stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price, volume, and sentiment accelerating together — a sign investors are chasing the price, not just following it.
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
+19%
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 market behavior suggests a dominant *herding* dynamic, where investors align with peer movements rather than independent analysis. The narrative gap (64 vs. 37) indicates optimism may outpace fundamentals, while euphoria persists despite flat momentum. Key open question: Will the stock decouple from peers if sentiment cools? The lack of panic or overconfidence signals suggests caution, not recklessness. Herding may persist if peers remain under pressure.
Updated: 09/08/2026, 07:51 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Waters has outperformed the market over the past 20 years by 2.82% on an annualized basis producing an average annual return of 12.05%"
"Waters reported Q2 2026 adjusted earnings of $3.05 per share and raised its full year guidance for organic revenue growth"
"Waters stock has put in a strong multi-year gain, yet the valuation signals are split, with an intrinsic value estimate based on a Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) model pointing to upside while the earnings multiple checks lean expensive"
"Baird Adjusts Price Target on Waters to $456 From $434, Keeps Outperform Rating"
📈 5D 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 — 66/100
🔴 Weakest match
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 17/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among methodologies, with scores ranging from a cautious 66 (Walter Bagehot’s ‘adequate but not exceptional liquidity’) down to Peter Lynch’s 19 (failing his growth-at-a-reasonable-price test). The more bullish approaches—like Nelson’s technical cycle view (65) and Bagehot’s liquidity assessment—suggest it’s a *relatively* attractive play, possibly oversold or liquid enough to weather volatility. In contrast, the defensive and value-oriented frameworks (Graham’s 28–29, Lynch’s 19) dismiss it outright, citing weak fundamentals or overvaluation, while Fisher (40) and Schwager (40) see no standout edge. The middle ground—Marks’ mixed ‘good business but high expectations’ (48) and Livermore’s ‘no clear trend’ (49)—reflects uncertainty about whether this stock’s growth is sustainable or if it’s already priced for perfection. The debate hinges on whether to trust cyclical or liquidity tailwinds (top scores) or whether the risks (crowd excitement, late-cycle positioning) outweigh any potential.
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🟢 66
Adequate but not exceptional liquidity
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 63
No clear trend — Livermore preferred to stay out of this
Key question
What is the price telling me right now?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 61
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 60
Mixed signal on whether growth translates to real profit
Key question
Is management building real value, or just building itself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 60
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 50
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 47
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟡 47
Some signs of crowd excitement building
Key question
Am I being swept along with the crowd, or thinking for myself?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 44
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 40
Doesn't show the quality/growth signature Fisher required
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 37
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
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 36
Looks late-cycle — the position Marks would treat with extra caution
Key question
Where are we in the cycle right now — near a hot extreme, or a cold one?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🔴 29
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
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🔴 28
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)
🔴 19
Doesn't clear Lynch's growth-at-a-reasonable-price bar
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🔴 17
Cycle looks stretched toward overbought
Key question
Is the price overextended, or is there still room to move?
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 an uptrend (10 bullish · 0 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 uptrend 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
59.3%
Operating Margin
25.4%
Net Margin
20.3%
EBITDA Margin
25.4%
ROE
25.1%
ROA
12.7%
ROIC
—
EPS
$10.80
Cash
$587.83M
Total Debt
$947.45M
Current Ratio
1.73
Debt/Equity
0.37
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
$42.90
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$11.10
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 14 positive, 3 neutral, 3 negative out of the last 20 articles.
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 18.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 15.9.2026
Yahoo · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 14.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
PR Newswire · 11.9.2026
Yahoo · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 9.9.2026
MT Newswires · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Benzinga · 9.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Simply Wall St. · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 4.9.2026
Waters Corporation (WAT) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 72/100, rated "Strong". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
WAT currently scores 72/100 (Strong) 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.
WAT's technical score is 90/100, which currently reads as bullish — 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): 25.1% — strong; Debt/equity: 0.37; Current ratio: 1.73.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; Calmar: 0.47 (3y annualized return 15.6% / max drawdown 33.4%); P/E: 39.2.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for WAT.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 4 purchases and 1 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KUEBLER CHRISTOPHER A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 3,626 | +3,626 | $136.43 |
| KUEBLER CHRISTOPHER A | Open Market Sale | 6.8.2026 | 3,626 | -3,626 | $397.94 |
| KUEBLER CHRISTOPHER A | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 6.8.2026 | 3,626 | -3,626 | — |
| Knight Heather | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 63.03 | +63.03 | — |
| Jiang Wei | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 67.42 | +67.42 | — |
| Jiang Wei | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 3,573 | +67 | — |
| Knight Heather | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,281 | +63 | — |
| Carpio Robert L III | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.6.2026 | 189 | -189 | $369.18 |
| Carpio Robert L III | Tax Withholding in Shares | 24.6.2026 | 3,426 | -189 | $369.18 |
| Chaubal Amol | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.5.2026 | 239 | -239 | $352.21 |
| Chaubal Amol | Tax Withholding in Shares | 12.5.2026 | 7,623 | -239 | $352.21 |
| Bennett Jianqing | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.4.2026 | 302 | -302 | $304.09 |
| Bennett Jianqing | Tax Withholding in Shares | 6.4.2026 | 6,532 | -302 | $304.09 |
| Knight Heather | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 68.44 | +68.44 | — |
| Jiang Wei | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 64.06 | +64.06 | — |
| Knight Heather | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 1,218 | +68 | — |
| Jiang Wei | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.3.2026 | 3,505 | +64 | — |
| Jiang Wei | Open Market Purchase | 16.3.2026 | 500 | +500 | $289.46 |
| Jiang Wei | Open Market Purchase | 16.3.2026 | 3,441 | +500 | $289.46 |
| FEARON RICHARD H | Open Market Purchase | 6.3.2026 | 1,000 | +1,000 | $306.34 |
| FEARON RICHARD H | Open Market Purchase | 6.3.2026 | 3,302 | +1,000 | $306.34 |
| Bennett Jianqing | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.3.2026 | 410 | -410 | $307.23 |
| Chaubal Amol | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.3.2026 | 709 | -709 | $307.23 |
| Batra Udit | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.3.2026 | 3,417 | -3,417 | $307.23 |
| Bennett Jianqing | Tax Withholding in Shares | 2.3.2026 | 6,834 | -410 | $307.23 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
3,294,037 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 4,166,848 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
60.9% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 71.7% 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