The score fell 11 points, mainly due to valuation and price changes. Price rose 4.0%, from $11.21 to $11.66. Reported EPS was unchanged, so the higher price reduced valuation support.

Valuation and price changes subtracted 10.4 points. The comparison uses the same available inputs on both dates. Displayed changes are rounded to whole points.

Historical cheapness: current PE is 15.4× versus the full-history median of 11.7× shown in the valuation table, producing 32.1/100. Positive weekly observations receive equal weight; lower past EPS alone does not disqualify them.

Outlook-adjusted valuation: 27.4/100. The model applies a 1.1% 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 9.6× (18-month half-life). The favorable scenario uses 12.8× PE and $0.8 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 -2.4%, earnings -64%, operating margin -2 percentage points. Free cash flow is 10% of revenue. The business score is 42/100. 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 $0.81 of EPS and a 12.8× PE, suggesting about $10.38 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 $13.10. 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 $0.62 of EPS and a 12.4× PE, suggesting a share price of about $7.71 — 32% 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 4 points, mainly due to valuation and price changes. Price rose 17.2%, from $1484.98 to $1740.00.

Valuation and price changes added 4.1 points. The comparison uses the same available inputs on both dates. Displayed changes are rounded to whole points.

Historical cheapness: current PE is 22.1× versus the full-history median of 63× shown in the valuation table, producing 64.6/100. Positive weekly observations receive equal weight; lower past EPS alone does not disqualify them.

Outlook-adjusted valuation: 64.9/100. The model applies a 44.9% 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 63× (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 +175.3%. Free cash flow is 56.8% of revenue. The business score is 74.7/100. 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 93.2% upside, or about $3155.63.

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 19.5%. 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 64% downside, or about $588.01, with a 15% minimum.

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