Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· ·
$2.76
▲ $0.17 (+6.6%)
Market data updated: 10/01 01:19 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$2.64M
Day Range
$2.66 - $2.80
52-Week Range
$2.38 - $55.60
Beta
—
Next Earnings
09.11.2026
Support
$2.38
Resistance
$7.74
-94.2% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/28 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
🟢 Bullish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 107.3%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -378.2% (negative)
Fundamental
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
48
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
82
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
29
Risk
40
Sentiment
80
Fundamental
27
Institutional
100
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 on Beyond Air, Inc. is limited and lacks specific, detailed mentions. The only notable reference is a 2026 patent publication for a method using gaseous nitric oxide to inhibit tumor growth, indicating the company’s focus on biomedical or healthcare innovation. No broader corporate updates, financial performance, or major events are highlighted in available sources.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about Beyond Air, Inc.. News trend score: 80. Reason: 5 of the last 5 articles are positive, versus 0 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
39
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
57
Psychology
50
Fundamentals
27
Technical
29
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.
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 stock is moving in lockstep with its peers at the same intensity, rather than on its own data.
Price (3M)
-70%
Market Narrative
45
Fundamental Reality
57
Narrative Gap
-12
🔀 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
Walter Bagehot — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 35/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that prioritize growth potential and those focused on risk or valuation discipline. Investors like Walter Bagehot and Peter Lynch see it as a resilient, high-growth opportunity—Bagehot’s liquidity focus suggests it could weather downturns, while Lynch’s growth-driven approach highlights undervaluation relative to its expansion trajectory. Conversely, value-oriented thinkers like Benjamin Graham and Gerald Loeb dismiss it outright, with Graham calling it statistically unsafe and Loeb flagging its risk profile as a capital threat. The middle ground is occupied by cyclical analysts like Samuel Nelson and Howard Marks (cycle), who see it as favorably positioned in the market’s current phase, while behavioral economists like Veblen and Livermore warn against its speculative or trend-defying nature. The contrast underscores whether the stock’s strengths lie in its growth story or its structural vulnerabilities.
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
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟢 93
Growth candidate — the price hasn't caught up to the growth
Key question
Is the growth worth the price?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟢 84
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)
🟢 82
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟢 77
A real, disciplined setup with favorable reward/risk
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 75
Exceptional company quality by Fisher's standards
Key question
How exceptional is this business, really?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟡 63
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 49
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 45
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
Key question
Could I live with this volatility long enough for compounding to actually work?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham (Enterprising Investor)
The Intelligent Investor (1949) — the Enterprising Investor chapters
🟡 44
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?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 45%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Benjamin Graham
Security Analysis (1934) / The Intelligent Investor (1949)
🟡 43
Fails most of Graham's defensive criteria
Key question
Where is my margin of safety?
⚠️ Partial data for this stock — score is less reliable — Data availability: 35%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 39
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
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)
🔴 35
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
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 (1 bullish · 7 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.
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
3.3%
Operating Margin
-378.2%
Net Margin
-433.0%
EBITDA Margin
-337.9%
ROE
-542.8%
ROA
-94.0%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$4.01
Cash
$6.74M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
3.80
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Current Price
$2.76
Estimated Fair Value (DCF)
-$58.92
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
25.0%
Discount Rate (WACC)
9.0%
Terminal Growth Rate
2.5%
Projection Years
5
| Year | Growth Rate | Projected FCF | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 25.0% | $-23.96M | $-21.98M |
| 2 | 19.4% | $-28.60M | $-24.08M |
| 3 | 13.8% | $-32.54M | $-25.12M |
| 4 | 8.1% | $-35.18M | $-24.92M |
| 5 | 2.5% | $-36.06M | $-23.44M |
Base FCF (last actual year)
$-19.17M
Terminal Value
$-568.64M
Present Value of Terminal Value
$-369.57M
Enterprise Value
$-489.12M
Net Debt
$0
Equity Value
$-489.12M
*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
$0.74
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$0.62
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 0 neutral, 0 negative out of the last 5 articles.
Benzinga · 24.9.2026
Benzinga · 21.9.2026
ChartMill · 3.8.2026
ChartMill · 3.8.2026
Benzinga · 3.8.2026
Beyond Air, Inc. (XAIR) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 48/100, 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.
XAIR currently scores 48/100 (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.
XAIR's technical score is 29/100, 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): 107.3%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 70.9%; Free cash flow growth: 56.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -378.2% (negative); Net margin: -433.0% (negative); ATR: 12.9% of price.
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for XAIR.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 3 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 25 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MOORHEAD DANIEL J | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 4,340 | +4,340 | — |
| Goodman Robert Scott | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 34,822 | +34,722 | $5.76 |
| Goodman Robert Scott | Open Market Purchase | 29.7.2026 | 34,722 | +34,722 | — |
| MOORHEAD DANIEL J | Grant/Award from Employer | 5.1.2026 | 70,000 | +70,000 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 400 | +400 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 1,250 | +1,250 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 1,500 | +1,500 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 2,000 | +2,000 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 2,250 | +2,250 | — |
| Forbes William P | Disposition to the Company | 4.11.2025 | 0 | -3,750 | — |
| Forbes William P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 3,750 | +3,750 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 40,000 | +40,000 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 14,000 | +14,000 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 10,000 | +10,000 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 3,500 | +3,500 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 12,500 | +12,500 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 20,000 | +20,000 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Disposition to the Company | 4.11.2025 | 0 | -47,500 | — |
| Lisi Steven A. | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 47,500 | +47,500 | — |
| Goodman Robert Scott | Disposition to the Company | 4.11.2025 | 0 | -187 | — |
| Goodman Robert Scott | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 187 | +187 | — |
| Larson Douglas Quinton | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 15,000 | +15,000 | — |
| Larson Douglas Quinton | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Larson Douglas Quinton | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 1,000 | +1,000 | — |
| Larson Douglas Quinton | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2025 | 3,750 | +3,750 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
59,321 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 72,945 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
52.5% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 42.0% 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