Loading data...
Loading data...
Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
· · NYSE
$119.18
▲ $3.04 (+2.6%)
Market data updated: 09/15 07:27 PM
News analyzed: 09/15/2026
Market Cap
Not available
Day Range
$117.00 - $119.34
52-Week Range
$68.06 - $135.35
Beta
—
Next Earnings
—
+69.8% (1Y)
⚠️ Insufficient data for a reliable StockIQ Score
Only 3 of 7 categories available — Fundamental, Growth, Valuation, Quality unavailable.
Strengths: 2/13 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
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Price vs. SMA 50
Price is above the 50-day average
Technical
Biggest negative driver
Calmar Ratio (return vs. drawdown)
Calmar: 0.14 (3y annualized return 6.6% / max drawdown 46.7%)
Risk
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.
XES (State Street SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF) earns an overall **investorScore of 75** with a **STRONG** rating, driven primarily by robust technical performance and a favorable news sentiment backdrop. The technical category scores **82**, reflecting a strong bullish bias: the price remains above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, while the MACD histogram and RSI (56.6) indicate healthy upward momentum. News sentiment also supports the score at **74**, with a mix of neutral and positive articles—including industry-specific reforms and macroeconomic tailwinds—suggesting resilience in the energy sector. However, the **risk score of 42** introduces significant caution, particularly due to the **Calmar ratio of 0.17**, which highlights a historically high **47.1% max drawdown** relative to its modest 3-year annualized return (8.2%). This volatility risk offsets the technical and news-driven optimism, creating a nuanced profile where upside potential is balanced by potential downside volatility.
The stock exhibits clear bullish momentum, with prices above both the 50-day and 200-day moving averages, a positive MACD histogram, and an RSI of 56.6—all signaling sustained upward momentum.
This technical strength suggests a favorable short-to-medium-term trend, reinforcing investor confidence in the asset’s current trajectory.
News coverage is predominantly positive, with articles highlighting sector-specific reforms, macroeconomic trends, and energy sector strength, though one neutral piece balances the narrative.
Positive news sentiment reinforces the stock’s resilience and aligns with broader industry tailwinds, supporting its valuation.
The Calmar ratio (0.17) and a **47.1% max drawdown** over three years indicate high volatility relative to returns, while the ATR (2.5% of price) reflects moderate daily price swings.
This volatility risk could erode gains during downturns, making the asset less stable for risk-averse investors despite its current strength.
StockIQ conclusion
XES demonstrates a **STRONG** profile with compelling technical momentum and positive news sentiment, supported by relative outperformance. However, its **high volatility**—evidenced by a historically large drawdown and modest Calmar ratio—introduces meaningful risk, particularly for investors sensitive to downside exposure. The stock’s strength lies in its current upward trajectory and sector tailwinds, but the volatility risk underscores the need for cautious positioning. The overall score reflects a balanced view where upside potential is tempered by inherent volatility challenges.
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
46
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
36
Risk
42
Sentiment
74
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 **SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF (XES)** has been limited, with no direct mentions of the fund itself. Instead, headlines focus on broader energy sector trends—such as rising U.S. oil production (driven by Gulf of Mexico gains), misinterpreted refinery data, and geopolitical risks (e.g., Middle East tensions pushing oil near $90/bbl). Financial market discussions also highlight rising Treasury yields, bond yield trends, and sector performance, though none explicitly tie these to XES.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF. News trend score: 74. Reason: 8 of the last 19 articles are positive, versus 4 negative.
News trend analysis is based on article sentiment only, and is not investment advice or financial counsel. Read the full disclaimer
🌡️ Emotional Temperature
11
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
50
Psychology
13
Fundamentals
—
Technical
36
Valuation
—
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.
A sharp drop, unusual volume, and negative news sentiment all at once — selling pressure that looks emotional.
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)
+3%
Market Narrative
53
Fundamental Reality
50
Narrative Gap
+3
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
🧠 StockIQ Psychologist
The market behavior for XES suggests traders are anchored near resistance (3.1% away), with no dominant bias driving action. Mild FOMO and euphoria coexist but lack momentum confirmation, while anchoring dominates due to proximity to a key level. The narrative gap (4 points) hints at slight misalignment between sentiment and technicals. The open question: will traders break resistance or hold near it, given the absence of panic or extreme volatility?
Updated: 09/07/2026, 05:31 PM
What could change this?
👥 What the crowd believes
"Oil remains supported near $90/bbl by Middle East tensions and attacks on vessels in the Strait of Hormuz"
"Sector ETF report for XES"
"U.S. June oil production increased by 37 kb/d to 13,792 kb/d"
📈 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
Charles Mackay — 74/100
🔴 Weakest match
Jack Schwager — 22/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock’s divergent scores reflect stark contrasts between methodologies that rely on qualitative judgment and those constrained by data gaps or cyclical skepticism. Charles Mackay’s near-neutral stance (70) suggests no obvious speculative frenzy, while Edgar Lawrence Smith’s 100—though theoretically maxed—is tempered by a lack of dividend/growth data, leaving his model theoretically ‘interested’ but practically unapplied. Meanwhile, the cluster of mid-range scores (48–51) from Housel, Loeb, and even Marks (who flags high expectations) hints at a cautious ‘holdable but not effortless’ consensus, where fundamentals are present but not compelling enough for aggressive investors. At the opposite end, Jack Schwager’s low 27 and Nelson’s 35 underscore a cyclical or structural caution, implying either overvaluation or a lack of clear technical setups—hardly the kind of ‘wizard’-approved opportunity his system would target. The absence of decisive ‘buy’ signals across most frameworks underscores a stock that, based on documented principles, remains a gray area rather than a clear winner.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 74
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)
🟢 71
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
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%
Howard Marks
The Most Important Thing (2011) / Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 48
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)
🟡 46
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟡 45
Moderate risk to capital
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Howard Marks (Market Cycle)
Mastering the Market Cycle (2018)
🟡 45
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 43
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
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 40
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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🔴 22
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
Based on the last 275 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 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.
Total dividend per share paid each year, over the last 5 years.
| Ex-Dividend Date | Amount per Share |
|---|---|
| 22.6.2026 | $0.309 |
| 23.3.2026 | $0.325 |
| 22.12.2025 | $0.308 |
| 22.9.2025 | $0.359 |
| 23.6.2025 | $0.393 |
| 24.3.2025 | $0.323 |
| 23.12.2024 | $0.282 |
| 23.9.2024 | $0.306 |
| 24.6.2024 | $0.260 |
| 18.3.2024 | $0.190 |
| 18.12.2023 | $0.193 |
| 18.9.2023 | $0.158 |
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 8 positive, 7 neutral, 4 negative out of the last 19 articles.
SeekingAlpha · 11.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 7.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 4.9.2026
Yahoo · 31.8.2026
Zacks · 31.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 23.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 21.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 19.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 17.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 11.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 6.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 3.8.2026
SeekingAlpha · 30.7.2026
SeekingAlpha · 29.7.2026
Zacks · 7.7.2026
Zacks · 29.6.2026
StockIQ doesn't currently have enough real data to compute a reliable score for SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF (XES) — 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 XES 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.
XES'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: Price is above the 50-day average; Price is above the 200-day average.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Calmar: 0.14 (3y annualized return 6.6% / max drawdown 46.7%); MACD histogram is negative — falling momentum; -3.4% over the last 3 months relative to the index.
Yes — XES 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.
391,407 shares short as of 2026-08-31 · vs. 258,004 on 2026-07-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
48.4% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 54.9% 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