Possible bearish Wave 2 crest is the highest-ranked admissible strategic count; cycle status is rising stack.
GER · Market · Weekly research
IVCS Elliott Wave report
Invesco Markets II plc - Invesco Cybersecurity UCITS ETF
Current structure
Possible bearish Wave 2 crest
34/100 setup score
75/100 data quality
The setup score is a rules-based composite, not a probability or price forecast.
Investment view
Based on weekly closing prices
What the current structure is saying
Setup lifecycle
Watching
The lifecycle separates an interesting setup from price confirmation, an active thesis, maturity and invalidation.
A weekly close through 4.20, supported by an FLD cross and improving relative strength.
The underlying directional structure fails beyond 6.42; a forming endpoint can extend before that happens.
The active endpoint can move until its reversal is confirmed; earnings, gaps and volatility can jump through technical levels.
The picture behind the setup
Weekly wave structure and decision levels
Filled markers are confirmed pivots; the outlined marker is still forming. Decision lines show where the primary interpretation confirms or fails.
Close
30-week trend
Fair Value
Confirm
Directional failure
Scenario comparison
How the valid counts compete
Pre-emptive downside check
29/100Contained
This is a pre-emptive vulnerability checklist, not a probability of decline. It rises when mature wave structure, overextension, cycle rollover, count instability and event risk cluster before price breaks down.
Current read
The closing-price swing map is classified as possible bearish wave 2 crest. Price is 22.7% above its 30-week trend. 7 of 7 available confirmation measures are constructive.
7 constructive · 0 neutral · 0 weak
Evidence of deterioration
- A weekly close below 4.20, the nearest confirmed swing low.
- Cycle pressure rolling from cresting into falling.
- Relative strength and market activity losing neutral.
Bearish structure weakens above
EUR 6.42Confirmed on 2025-10-24. Treat this as a structure reference, not an automatic trading level.
4-week return
6.3%
13-week return
37.6%
26-week return
29.1%
52-week return
18.0%
From 52-week high
-9.0%
26-week volatility
34.9%
Wave structure
Price, trend and the active swing
The chart uses a 6.5% closing-price reversal threshold. Filled markers are confirmed pivots; the outlined final marker is still forming.
Primary admissible count
50% evidence weight
Possible bearish Wave 2 crest
Counts must pass hard Elliott geometry rules. Fibonacci relationships, alternation and cycle evidence rank admissible interpretations; evidence weights compare scenarios and are not forecast probabilities.
Confirm 4.20
Invalidate 6.42
Count stability Moderate · 68/100
PassWave 2 protects the Wave 1 originOrigin 6.42; Wave 2 6.36.
GuidelineWave 2 retracement is proportionateRetraced 97% of Wave 1.
Strategic degree uses a 10.4% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
Primary degree uses a 6.5% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
Tactical degree uses a 4.5% weekly closing-price reversal threshold.
15 weeks · Forming
Pivot from 2026-04-10
Pivot from 2025-10-24
Price is 22.7% from trend
Price is 20.4% from Fair Value
4.11 low · 6.99 high
Cycle timing
Are the main rhythms moving together?
Nominal cycles are starting bands, not fixed clocks. Each period adapts to the strongest nearby repeat in detrended weekly prices; projected turns are future intervals and require price confirmation.
Current medium-term pressure direction
75/100 constructive · 25/100 risk
Timing estimate, not a dated forecast
Timing estimate, not a dated forecast
Cycle pressure
Above zero is positive pressure; direction matters more than the absolute number.
Multi-cycle rhythm
The thick line is the blended reading; thinner lines show 20, 40 and 80-week components.
Nominal / estimated10w / 8w
Current phaseCresting
Period evidence0/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough4w
Future trough interval2–6w
Nominal / estimated20w / 25w
Current phaseRising
Period evidence0/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough19w
Future trough interval1–11w
Nominal / estimated40w / 35w
Current phaseRising
Period evidence39/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough13w
Future trough interval17–27w
Nominal / estimated80w / 80w
Current phaseRising
Period evidence0/100
FLD confirmationCrossed Up
Since last trough-
Future trough interval-
Confirmation
100% confirmation alignment
Does price behaviour support the wave count?
Each measure answers a different question. Agreement across several measures is more useful than one strong reading in isolation.
Trend
22.7% above trend
Price is holding above its 30-week trend.
Cycle pressure
Rising
The medium-term pressure curve is turning higher.
Cycle alignment
Rising Stack
Several cycle lengths are improving together.
Relative strength
+17.5
Outperforming its benchmark
Market activity
+97.4
Participation is supportive
Market dynamics
+1.4
Price and volume behaviour is supportive
30-week momentum
+27.4
Medium-term momentum is positive
7 constructive, 0 weak and 0 neutral measures.
This is a count of rules-based evidence, not a recommendation.Market activity
Whether participation is supporting the move.
Relative strength
Performance against the market benchmark.
30-week momentum
The pace of the medium-term price move.
Market dynamics
A separate scale prevents this lower-range measure being hidden by relative strength.
Risk and participation
How much movement sits behind the pattern?
Wave structure is easier to judge when drawdown, volatility and participation are visible beside it.
52-week low4.11
52-week high6.99
Based on the latest 26 weekly returns
Average high-to-low range over 13 weeks
From the highest close in the stored record
Of its trailing 20-week average
Drawdown history
Distance below the highest prior weekly close.
Realised volatility
Annualised variability of the latest 26 weekly returns.
Relative volume
Weekly volume as a percentage of its 20-week average.
Market, peer and event context
Is the structure isolated—or supported by its environment?
Peer breadth tests whether the sector is moving with this security. Event and options context tests whether a catalyst could overwhelm otherwise valid technical structure.
50% constructive
11 of 22 analysed peers have a bullish rule-valid primary count.
14% have improving cycle stacks Breadth shows whether peers share the structure. Cohort outcomes use non-overlapping, point-in-time trend and momentum states from the same sector and report benchmark excess return when matching benchmark bars exist; they are context, not a backtest of the Elliott count.No near collision identified
No stored event or positioning warning currently conflicts with the count.
Event and positioning context tests whether a scheduled catalyst or the options-implied move could overwhelm the technical structure.| Peer-state horizon | Independent samples | Positive | Median | Median excess vs ^GDAXI | 10th–90th percentile |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 weeks | 490 | 55% | 0.5% | -0.1% | -3.8% to 4.9% |
| 13 weeks | 175 | 60% | 1.4% | 0.2% | -5.5% to 9.0% |
| 26 weeks | 91 | 66% | 2.4% | -1.0% | -8.1% to 16.0% |
Historical context
7 similar weekly states
What followed similar readings in this security?
Matches compare trend, cycle direction, momentum, relative strength and market dynamics using only information available at each historical week.
Not enough comparable history yet
Historical context appears only when at least eight completed outcomes are available for one of the measured horizons.
Overlapping historical matches are descriptive context, not independent observations or a forecast.
Evidence quality75/100
This measures usable history, indicator coverage and confirmed swing points. It does not measure the chance of the scenario succeeding.
- Weekly history
- 35/100
- Indicator coverage
- 95/100
- Confirmed structure
- 100/100
Rules, references and limitations
- Swing points use weekly closes and a 6.5% adaptive reversal threshold.
- The final swing is provisional until the reversal threshold is met.
- Candidate counts must pass the Wave 2 origin, Wave 3 progression/length and Wave 4 overlap rules when those waves are present.
- Fibonacci proportions and alternation rank valid candidates but never rescue a hard-rule failure.
- Primary and alternate evidence weights compare admissible counts; they are not probabilities.
- Nominal Hurst periods adapt to observed weekly rhythm. Future windows include measured timing uncertainty and require FLD or price confirmation.
Audit trail
Recent swing points
The exact points used to construct the visible wave map.
| Date | Status | Type | Price | Move | Duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025-02-28 | Confirmed | High | 5.70 | - | 0 weeks |
| 2025-04-11 | Confirmed | Low | 4.63 | -18.7% | 6 weeks |
| 2025-10-24 | Confirmed | High | 6.42 | 38.6% | 28 weeks |
| 2026-02-27 | Confirmed | Low | 4.22 | -34.2% | 18 weeks |
| 2026-03-13 | Confirmed | High | 4.60 | 8.9% | 2 weeks |
| 2026-04-10 | Confirmed | Low | 4.20 | -8.7% | 4 weeks |
| 2026-07-24 | Forming | High | 6.36 | 51.4% | 15 weeks |