The score fell 14 points, mainly due to valuation and price changes. Price fell 2.8%, from $47.41 to $46.10.

Valuation and price changes subtracted 13.6 points. The comparison uses the same available inputs on both dates. Displayed changes are rounded to whole points.

Historical cheapness: current PE is 120× versus the full-history median of 15.5× shown in the valuation table, producing 5.2/100. Positive weekly observations receive equal weight; lower past EPS alone does not disqualify them.

Outlook-adjusted valuation: 5.1/100. The model applies a -19.8% earnings-growth assumption and a 10% annual return hurdle, with positive credit limited by evidence coverage and confidence.

Forward price scenarios use recent PE history separately. Recent history has a separately weighted median of 15.7× (18-month half-life). The favorable scenario uses 100.5× PE and $0.3 projected EPS, informed by growth, margins and earnings-quality checks. This is a model scenario, not an analyst target. A return to the full-history median is not assumed.

Business trends are mixed. Over the past year: revenue +10.8%, earnings -81.6%, operating margin -17.8 percentage points. Free cash flow is 13.3% of revenue. The business score is 43/100. Growth, margins and cash generation drive the score. Missing or older data receives less weight.

The earnings calculation and the displayed scenario are different.

The earnings case uses $0.34 of EPS and a 100.5× PE, suggesting about $34.65 before the minimum is applied. Valuation history and outlook inform the PE.

The model applies a 15% minimum upside scenario, so the card shows +15%, or about $52.87. That adjusted price does not come from the EPS × PE calculation above.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.

Weaker than expected earnings could put pressure on the share price.

Our downside case uses $0.23 of EPS and a 81× PE, suggesting a share price of about $18.24 — 60% below today’s price. Valuation history and outlook inform the PE.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.

The score rose 2 points, mainly due to valuation and price changes. Price rose 5.8%, from $30.47 to $32.25.

Valuation and price changes added 2.1 points. The comparison uses the same available inputs on both dates. Displayed changes are rounded to whole points.

Historical cheapness: current PE is 23.4× versus the full-history median of 93.9× shown in the valuation table, producing 57.2/100. Positive weekly observations receive equal weight; lower past EPS alone does not disqualify them.

Outlook-adjusted valuation: 57.2/100. The model applies a 14.3% earnings-growth assumption and a 10% annual return hurdle, with positive credit limited by evidence coverage and confidence.

Forward price scenarios use recent PE history separately. Recent history has a separately weighted median of 77.6× (18-month half-life). A reliable earnings-based price target is unavailable. A return to the full-history median is not assumed.

Business trends are strong. Over the past year: revenue +42.8%, operating margin +5.3 percentage points. Free cash flow is 28.3% of revenue. The business score is 83.8/100. Growth, margins and cash generation drive the score. Missing or older data receives less weight.

Business trends and outlook support upside. Price history provides the reference because earnings are difficult to compare.

The calculation starts with the stock’s typical weekly price movements, adjusted for business performance and outlook. Unusually large jumps have less influence. The result is 61.3% upside, or about $52.86.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.

Historical price swings are the main risk driver, even without a sharp profit decline.

The stock’s historical price swings drive this figure; the separate operating stress is 24.9%. Price history and operating stress provide the reference because comparable earnings do not support a future PE target. Operating stress reflects revenue, earnings, margins, outlook and relevant debt exposure. The larger stress gives 53.2% downside, or about $15.34, with a 15% minimum.

This is a scenario based on our model, not a forecast or probability.