Analyzing the stock…
70
Gathering technical, fundamental, and market data — a few seconds
Consumer Discretionary · ·
$8.63
▼ $0.13 (-1.5%)
Market data updated: 10/01 12:59 AM
Fundamentals updated: 10/01/2026
News analyzed: 10/01/2026
Market Cap
$556.84M
Day Range
$8.61 - $8.69
52-Week Range
$4.80 - $9.40
Beta
—
Next Earnings
12.11.2026
Support
$8.30
Resistance
$9.40
XMAX is a stock from the Consumer Cyclical sector — Retail, automotive, and leisure — demand rises and falls with economic sentiment and consumers' disposable income.
+57.6% (1Y)
Strengths: 8/25 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
🟡 Mixed
Technical Trend
🔴 Bearish
Computed directly from the same signals behind the score above — not AI-generated.
Biggest positive driver
Revenue growth (last year)
Revenue growth (last year): 72.6%
Growth
Biggest negative driver
Operating margin
Operating margin: -11.5% (negative)
Fundamental
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
50
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
74
Quality
58
Value
50
Momentum
34
Risk
56
Sentiment
74
Fundamental
32
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 XMAX, Inc. highlights its aggressive expansion into AI-driven services, particularly through its subsidiary XMax AI. The company has secured partnerships, such as a cooperation with Korea’s apM Group for vertical AI applications, and announced significant AI-related contracts and GPU-as-a-service growth. Despite a strong Q2 earnings report—showing a 2,750% jump in EPS and rising sales—analysts remain skeptical, citing unprofitable AI operations and reliance on equity financing. XMAX also made a $12 million acquisition of Aerora shares, while its inclusion in the Russell 3000 Index underscored market recognition.
AI summary based on English-language news sources only — not investment advice.
Everyone's writing about XMAX, Inc.. News trend score: 74. Reason: 5 of the last 9 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
17
🎯 Conviction (vs. Emotion)
44
Psychology
20
Fundamentals
32
Technical
34
Valuation
50
Extreme momentum, price far above its moving average, and a large premium over fair value.
The price is holding at a real, documented historical support/resistance level (a 50-day high or low).
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 price rise has far outpaced the actual improvement in fundamental data.
Price (3M)
-5%
Market Narrative
55
Fundamental Reality
44
Narrative Gap
+11
🔀 Psychology Acceleration
News attention/sentiment is running well ahead of the price move itself.
📈 3D 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 — 100/100
🔴 Weakest match
Thorstein Veblen — 30/100
🗣️ Why do they disagree?
This stock sparks a sharp divide between methodologies, with some investors seeing strong fundamentals or growth potential while others flag red flags or indifference. Walter Bagehot’s near-perfect score highlights the stock’s liquidity resilience, suggesting it could weather financial stress, while Peter Lynch’s high score implies it’s a growth stock undervalued relative to its trajectory. In contrast, Benjamin Graham and Jesse Livermore’s low scores reflect deep skepticism—Graham dismisses it as lacking defensive traits, and Livermore’s negative trend verdict aligns with his contrarian bias against prevailing market momentum. Meanwhile, mid-tier scores from Fisher, Marks, and the efficient-market camp reveal caution: Fisher notes it’s solid but not exceptional, Marks warns of potentially inflated expectations, and the Efficient Market Theory dismisses it as unexceptional compared to broad indices. Thorstein Veblen’s low score hints at speculative overreach, while cycle-based analysts like Nelson and Marks (Market Cycle) see it as neither extreme nor particularly favorable, straddling the middle ground.
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
Charles Mackay
Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds (1841)
🟢 70
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)
🟢 69
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
Gerald M. Loeb
The Battle for Investment Survival (1935)
🟢 67
Reasonable capital-preservation profile
Key question
How much capital could I lose here if I'm wrong?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Philip Fisher
Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits (1958)
🟢 65
Solid, but not the exceptional quality Fisher looked for
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
Morgan Housel
The Psychology of Money (2020)
🟡 60
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)
🟡 51
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
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
Burton Malkiel & John Bogle
A Random Walk Down Wall Street (1973) / The Little Book of Common Sense Investing (2007)
🟡 44
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
🟡 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
Jack Schwager
Market Wizards (1989)
🟡 41
No clear edge either way
Key question
What's the risk/reward here, and where is my exit point?
Fact → Principle → Simulation
Jesse Livermore
Reminiscences of a Stock Operator (1923) / How to Trade in Stocks (1940)
🟡 39
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
Thorstein Veblen
The Theory of Business Enterprise (1904)
🔴 30
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
Based on the last 288 trading days, calculated from real price data. Click an indicator for details and a chart.
🔴 Most indicators support a downtrend (2 bullish · 6 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 trading range, but the picture isn't yet clear enough on the likely direction.
Low confidence
$8.30
Range Bottom
$9.40
Range Top
50
Trading Days in Range
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
25.0%
Operating Margin
-11.5%
Net Margin
-20.4%
EBITDA Margin
-11.5%
ROE
-12.2%
ROA
-9.6%
ROIC
—
EPS
-$0.17
Cash
$6.71M
Total Debt
—
Current Ratio
4.92
Debt/Equity
—
How is Fair Value calculated? →
Not enough cash-flow data to calculate a DCF model for this stock.
Book Value per Share
$1.35
Tangible Book Value per Share (Tangible NAV)
$1.35
Sentiment based on basic keywords (not AI) — 5 positive, 3 neutral, 1 negative out of the last 9 articles.
Yahoo · 28.9.2026
SeekingAlpha · 22.9.2026
Yahoo · 17.9.2026
Zacks · 21.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 14.8.2026
Benzinga · 12.8.2026
GlobeNewswire · 29.6.2026
GlobeNewswire · 26.6.2026
XMAX, Inc. (XMAX) currently has a StockIQ AI score of 50/100, 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.
XMAX currently scores 50/100 (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.
XMAX's technical score is 34/100, 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): 72.6%; Earnings per share (EPS) growth: 88.5%; Net income growth: 38.5%.
Based on the real signals StockIQ computed: Operating margin: -11.5% (negative); Net margin: -20.4% (negative); Return on equity (ROE): -12.2% (negative).
StockIQ has no recorded dividend payment history for XMAX.
Real transactions by officers and insiders, as reported to the SEC on Form 4 — 0 purchases and 0 sales out of the last 15 filings.
| Name | Transaction Type | Date | Shares | Change | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.11.2024 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 9.11.2023 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.11.2022 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 11.11.2021 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 10.11.2020 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 31.1.2020 | 6,000 | +6,000 | — |
| LIU BIN | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2019 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| PATEL UMESH | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2019 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| La Huy P | Grant/Award from Employer | 4.11.2019 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Chuang Jeffery | Grant/Award from Employer | 12.8.2019 | 35,000 | +35,000 | — |
| Su Min | Grant/Award from Employer | 13.12.2018 | 30,000 | +30,000 | — |
| LIU BIN | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.11.2018 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| La Huy P | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.11.2018 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| PATEL UMESH | Grant/Award from Employer | 7.11.2018 | 100,000 | +100,000 | — |
| Chuang Jeffery | Grant/Award from Employer | 24.8.2018 | 35,000 | +35,000 | — |
Official FINRA data — the number of shares open in short positions, plus daily short-sale activity.
9,683,093 shares short as of 2026-09-15 · vs. 9,330,565 on 2026-08-31
Official biweekly report (FINRA Rule 4560) — no real higher-frequency data exists for this metric.
79.6% of trading volume this week was short selling, vs. 76.5% 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