Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$239.86
▼ $1.46 (-0.6%)
Market data updated: 09/18 09:32 PM
News analyzed: 09/18/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$238.21 - $242.45
52-Week Range
$215.02 - $297.79
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
Support
$237.88
Resistance
$297.79
+8.3% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 0/13 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
🔴 Bearish
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
No notable strengths identified.
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest negative driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is below the 50-day average
Technical
What to watch next
When today echoes the past.
NO RELIABLE ECHO FOUND
Only 1 historical analog(s) found after removing overlapping dates — too few for a statistically meaningful comparison.
Historical matches considered: 1
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.
XAR’s overall score of 33 reflects a pronounced technical weakness, despite a relatively strong news sentiment and moderate risk profile. The technical category is heavily penalized by persistent underperformance relative to both short-term (50-day) and long-term (200-day) moving averages, alongside a negative MACD histogram signaling declining momentum. The RSI (33.1) and %K (8.1) further indicate an oversold condition, though this could also suggest a potential rebound if momentum shifts. Meanwhile, the news category scores highly (86) due to positive analyst mentions—particularly in defense and aerospace sectors—and neutral/positive media coverage, including references to geopolitical tensions and ETF inclusion discussions. However, this positive narrative does not offset the technical headwinds. The risk category scores moderately (50), with a manageable ATR (2.3%) and a Calmar ratio of 1.42, suggesting volatility is contained relative to returns (28.2% annualized over three years), though the 19.8% max drawdown remains notable. The strong ADX (29.0) indicates a clear trend, but the downward trajectory dominates the picture.
The stock is trading below both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, with a negative MACD histogram, RSI of 33.1, and %K at 8.1—all signaling weak momentum and oversold conditions. The ADX confirms a strong trend, but it is downward.
Technical indicators like these often precede further downside or a pullback, especially when momentum is declining and the stock is oversold.
The news category is dominated by positive analyst coverage (e.g., Lockheed Martin, RTX, and XAR in defense discussions) and neutral/positive media mentions, including ETF inclusion and geopolitical tailwinds.
Positive news can drive investor sentiment and justify valuation, but its impact is muted when technical performance remains weak.
The ATR (2.3%) is low relative to price, and the Calmar ratio (1.42) suggests resilience in volatility-adjusted returns, though the 19.8% max drawdown indicates past volatility spikes.
While volatility is manageable, the drawdown history highlights potential for significant short-term corrections despite strong long-term returns.
StockIQ conclusion
XAR’s weak overall score (33) is driven primarily by persistent technical underperformance, including trading below key moving averages and declining momentum, despite a strong news backdrop and moderate risk metrics. While positive analyst coverage and geopolitical tailwinds provide some support, the current technical environment suggests caution. The stock’s resilience in volatility-adjusted returns (Calmar 1.42) and low ATR (2.3%) offer some stability, but the downtrend remains the dominant factor. Investors should monitor for a breakout above the 50-day average or shifts in defense sector dynamics to assess potential improvements.
Written automatically from the computed data shown on this page only — not investment advice.
🗓️ 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
35
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
No data available
Quality
No data available
Value
No data available
Momentum
6
Risk
50
Sentiment
98
Fundamental
No data available
Institutional
No data available
Stocks with a similar DNA right now
Not enough comparably-scored stocks yet to show similar matches.
This stock hasn't been analyzed by StockIQAI's movement engine yet — coverage is still expanding. Check back soon.
Recent media coverage of the **State Street SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR)** has centered on its exposure to defense sector leaders amid geopolitical tensions, particularly U.S.-Iran relations. Analysts highlight the fund’s holdings—including Lockheed Martin, RTX, and Northrop Grumman—as potential beneficiaries of Pentagon spending increases, such as missile stockpile expansions. Broader market trends, like AI-driven tech gains and industrial sector volatility, contrast with defense’s lagging performance, framing XAR as a defensive play in uncertain economic conditions.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about State Street SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF. News trend score: 98. Reason: 9 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
32
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
71
Fundamentals
—
Technical
6
Valuation
—
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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.
A significant decline over time, but on unusually low trading volume — holders unwilling to accept the loss.
Price (3M)
-15%
Market Narrative
56
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+6
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market’s dominant **anchoring** behavior (score 71) reflects a fixation on the 1.5% support level, where traders may be reluctant to accept further declines. While sentiment remains positive (86/100), weak momentum (-11% ROC) and modest volume spikes (1.18x) suggest hesitation rather than euphoria. The narrow narrative-reality gap (-3) implies a disconnect between perceived optimism and technical weakness. The key question: will traders break the 1.5% anchor, or will they hold near support despite lingering caution?
Updated: 09/06/2026, 12:53 AM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Bet on These Defense ETFs Amid Renewed US-Iran Tensions"
"Defense ETFs to Buy as Pentagon Pushes to Boost Missile Stockpiles"
"US-Iran war reshapes markets: AI tech lifts S&P 500, ... and oil/defense lag."
📈 8D 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 — 97/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jesse Livermore — 38/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies that rely on technical or cyclical signals and those that demand deep fundamental or valuation scrutiny. Samuel Armstrong Nelson’s high score (96) and favorable cycle position suggest the stock may be undervalued relative to its historical range, while Jack Schwager’s disciplined, reward/risk-driven approach (75) also sees potential in a structured entry. In contrast, methodologies like Jesse Livermore’s (21) and Walter Bagehot’s (50, due to insufficient data) outright reject the stock—Livermore’s low score flags a counter-trend stance, while Bagehot’s lack of balance-sheet clarity leaves him neutral. Meanwhile, the Graham, Fisher, and Lynch models (all 50) are paralyzed by data gaps, while Howard Marks’ mixed verdict (53) hints at a business with strong fundamentals but possibly inflated expectations. The divide underscores whether the stock’s appeal lies in its technical or cyclical momentum (Nelson, Schwager) or whether its fundamentals remain too murky for confident long-term bets (Graham, Fisher).
Edgar Lawrence Smith
Common Stocks as Long-Term Investments (1924)
🟢 100
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
Samuel Armstrong Nelson
The ABC of Stock Speculation (1903)
🟢 97
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)
🟢 96
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 76
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)
🟢 69
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 55
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 55
Moderate — holdable, but not effortless
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
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 54
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)
🟡 53
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
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%
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟡 50
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: 0%
Peter Lynch
One Up on Wall Street (1989)
🟡 50
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: 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%
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🟡 50
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: 30%
Fact → Principle → Simulation
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%
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 38
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 278 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (0 bullish · 11 bearish · 0 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 22.6.2026 | $0.062 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.112 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.116 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.519 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.132 |
| 24.3.2025 | $0.190 |
| 23.12.2024 | $0.570 |
| 23.9.2024 | $0.207 |
| 24.6.2024 | $0.164 |
| 18.3.2024 | $0.156 |
| 18.12.2023 | $0.348 |
| 18.9.2023 | $0.125 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 9 positive, 10 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 20 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 16.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 15.9.2026
Benzinga · 11.9.2026
Benzinga · 10.9.2026
Yahoo · 1.9.2026
Zacks · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 1.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 28.8.2026
Yahoo · 26.8.2026
Zacks · 26.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 24.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 18.8.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for State Street SPDR S&P Aerospace & Defense ETF (XAR) — only 3 of 7 categories are available right now. Rather than show a misleading number, this page shows which data is missing instead.
StockIQ doesn't give buy/sell recommendations — and for XAR specifically, there currently isn't enough real data (only 3 of 7 categories available) to state even a factual score reliably. Check back once more data is available.
XAR's technical score is 6/100, 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: Price is below the 50-day average; Price is below the 200-day average; MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum.
Yes — XAR has a real recorded dividend payment history on StockIQ. See the Dividends section on this page for the actual per-share amounts and dates.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 0 filings.
No recent insider transaction filings found for this stock.
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
329,927 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 295,329 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
49.8% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 39.8% 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