Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$2.27
▲ $0.00 (+0.0%)
Market data updated: 10/01 12:22 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$2.26 - $2.34
52-Week Range
$2.24 - $3.96
Beta
—
Next Earnings
23.11.2026
Support
$2.24
Resistance
$3.22
WOOF is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
-37.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 4/31 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
DCF Fair Value
Estimated fair value: $5.33 vs. price $2.27 (+135.0%)
Fair Value
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 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
45
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
68
Quality
42
Value
57
Momentum
13
Risk
26
Sentiment
100
Fundamental
38
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 Petco Health and Wellness (NASDAQ: WOOF) highlights its operational recovery and financial improvements, including a Moody’s rating upgrade due to debt reduction and stronger balance sheet management. Analysts like Evercore ISI maintained an "In-Line" rating but lowered the price target to $3. The company was also featured among top growth and value stocks on Zacks Rank #1. However, broader industry trends—such as shifting pet spending patterns and Chewy’s (CHWY) mixed performance—cast some uncertainty over Petco’s valuation and growth trajectory.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc.. News trend score: 100. Reason: 11 of the last 15 articles are positive, versus 2 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
19
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
36
Psychology
69
Fundamentals
38
Technical
13
Valuation
57
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
Price (3M)
-16%
Market Narrative
44
Fundamental Reality
36
Narrative Gap
+8
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson — 95/100
🔴 Weakest match
Walter Bagehot — 5/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide among historical methodologies, with some seeing it as a potential opportunity while others flag it as risky or overvalued. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score suggests the stock may be near a cyclical low, aligning with his oversold/overbought framework, whereas Charles Mackay and Howard Marks (Market Cycle) also lean cautiously optimistic, viewing it as early-to-mid cycle rather than overheated. Conversely, the majority—including Peter Lynch, Benjamin Graham, and Philip Fisher—caution that the stock’s price may already reflect its growth potential, lacking the margin of safety or quality edge they demand. At the extreme end, investors like Jesse Livermore and Walter Bagehot dismiss it outright, warning of trend resistance and liquidity risks, while Morgan Housel and Gerald Loeb highlight volatility and capital preservation concerns. The contrast between Nelson’s bullish cyclical view and the bearish liquidity/trend signals from Livermore and Bagehot underscores a fundamental tension between timing-based and risk-averse approaches.
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 95
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)
🟢 80
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)
🟢 74
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 62
Mixed — growth exists but the price already reflects much of it
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 55
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
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?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 46
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 45
Mixed — doesn't clearly pass Graham's tests
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)
🟡 40
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
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 40
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
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🔴 33
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)
🔴 31
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
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🔴 13
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🔴 10
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)
🔴 9
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
Walter Bagehot
Lombard Street (1873)
🔴 5
Liquidity position Bagehot would flag as a real risk
Key question
Does this company have enough liquidity to survive real stress?
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 (0 bullish · 10 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 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
38.7%
Operating Margin
2.0%
Net Margin
0.2%
EBITDA Margin
5.3%
ROE
0.8%
ROA
0.2%
ROIC
—
EPS
$0.03
Cash
$256.74M
Total Debt
$1.49B
Current Ratio
0.90
Debt/Equity
1.28
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.27
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
$5.33
Model estimate — not a price target. Highly sensitive to growth/discount-rate assumptions.
Gap
+135.0%
🟢 Appears cheap relative to estimated value
Year 1 Growth Rate
-0.4%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | -0.4% | $186.26M | $170.88M |
| 2 | 0.3% | $186.90M | $157.31M |
| 3 | 1.1% | $188.89M | $145.85M |
| 4 | 1.8% | $192.25M | $136.20M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $197.06M | $128.07M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$186.95M
Terminal Value
$3.11B
Present Value of Terminal Value
$2.02B
Enterprise Value
$2.76B
Net Debt
$1.23B
Equity Value
$1.53B
*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
$4.07
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.64
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 11 positive, 2 neutral, 2 negative out of the last 15 articles.
Yahoo · 29.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.9.2026
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 25.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 24.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 23.9.2026
Yahoo · 21.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Benzinga · 29.7.2026
Petco Health and Wellness Company, Inc. (WOOF) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 45/100, rated "Moderate". The score is a weighted average across up to 7 categories (technical, fundamental, growth, fair value, news, quality, risk), based on real data only.
WOOF currently scores 45/100 (Moderate) 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, WOOF's estimated fair value is $5.33, which is 135.0% above the current price of $2.27. This is one valuation model among several signals in the fair-value category, not a price target.
WOOF's technical score is 13/100, 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: Estimated fair value: $5.33 vs. price $2.27 (+135.0%); Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 108.1%; Free cash flow growth: 276.3%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin is eroding over time; ATR: 4.6% of price; Current ratio: 0.90.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for WOOF.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 4 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anderson Joel D | Other Transaction | 22.9.2026 | 87,233 | -705,000 | $2.37 |
| SIMMONS SABRINA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 1,226,963 | -85,318 | $2.52 |
| Romanko Michael | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 1,100,807 | -90,138 | $2.52 |
| Insana Giovanni | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 386,659 | -10,688 | $2.52 |
| Venezia Patrick J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 357,764 | -14,948 | $2.52 |
| SIMMONS SABRINA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.9.2026 | 1,192,836 | -34,127 | $2.52 |
| May Holly | Open Market Sale | 9.7.2026 | 1,327,867 | -200,000 | $2.54 |
| May Holly | Open Market Sale | 8.7.2026 | 1,527,867 | -150,000 | $2.55 |
| May Holly | Open Market Sale | 7.7.2026 | 1,677,867 | -100,000 | $2.55 |
| MOHAN RAJENDRA M | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 583,689 | +60,662 | — |
| BRIGGS GARY S | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 223,423 | +60,662 | — |
| Breitner Cameron | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 153,338 | +60,662 | — |
| Murphy Glenn | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 1,060,662 | +60,662 | — |
| Yen Iris | Grant/Award from Employer | 30.6.2026 | 206,449 | +60,662 | — |
| Venezia Patrick J | Tax Withholding in Shares | 18.5.2026 | 372,712 | -26,120 | $2.50 |
| Anderson Joel D | Grant/Award from Employer | 1.5.2026 | 1,893,014 | +2,861 | $2.45 |
| May Holly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.4.2026 | 1,819,843 | -139,976 | $2.80 |
| May Holly | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.4.2026 | 1,777,867 | -41,976 | $2.80 |
| Insana Giovanni | Tax Withholding in Shares | 15.4.2026 | 397,347 | -22,308 | $2.80 |
| Insana Giovanni | Tax Withholding in Shares | 10.4.2026 | 419,655 | -1,549 | $2.84 |
| Anderson Joel D | Other Transaction | 13.3.2026 | 260,903 | -1,575,931 | $3.49 |
| Venezia Patrick J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.3.2026 | 500,861 | +58,805 | $2.46 |
| Venezia Patrick J | Open Market Sale | 13.3.2026 | 398,832 | -102,029 | $3.42 |
| Venezia Patrick J | Exercise of Derivative Securities | 13.3.2026 | 114,151 | -58,805 | — |
| SIMMONS SABRINA | Tax Withholding in Shares | 4.3.2026 | 1,377,829 | -125,036 | $2.65 |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
19,953,473 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 19,447,215 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
56.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 64.0% 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