Pattern Intelligence ยท NASDAQ

RWAY quant read

Runway Growth Finance Corp ยท Financial Services

The nearest historical setups lean lower, but the completed-week chart evidence is not confirming that read yet.

1-week positive match rate 26.9%

Historically negative ยท avg analogue -1.25%

Moderate historical lean
4-week blended positive rate 46.9%

Unclear ยท avg analogue -0.51%

Mixed historical lean
Completed-week chart evidence Chart evidence is mixed

The current setup has both supportive and challenging components.

Evidence agreement Evidence not decisive

Not confirmed yet; needs price losing trend support before treating the downside read as live.

Current weekly tape

Price, trend line, and fair value

Compare the stored pattern with completed weekly prices. The Fair Value line is the latest reference within this chart, held constant across the display.

Close
6.78
Trend Line
6.20
Fair value
8.08
Hover chart for weekly context.

Signal stack

What changed underneath price?

Each signal is standardized against its own recent history, so the lines show whether the current reading is unusually strong or weak for this stock.

Hover for standardized signal values.

Historical memory

Selected 4-week example returns

Each bar is a stored exampleโ€™s subsequent return, ordered by similarity. This selected set differs from the weighted global, sector and industry blend above.

Hover for analogue return and similarity rank.
Outcome frame

How varied were the historical outcomes?

The lower quartile, median and upper quartile of the selected examples. Actual future outcomes can fall outside this historical range.

Lower quartile -3.97%

What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.

Median example -1.13%

The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.

Upper quartile +1.99%

What stronger historical analogues tended to deliver.

Evidence stack

Why the model sees this setup

These are the current conditions feeding the analogue read. The point is not the number alone; it is whether the evidence agrees with the historical read.

Price vs Trend Line +9.35%

Price is comfortably above its medium-term trend.

Price vs Fair Value -16.10%

Price is trading below Fair Value, which can create recovery potential if pressure improves.

Market Dynamics +0.01

Market Dynamics are neutral.

Relative Strength -0.17

The stock is lagging relative strength.

Market Activity +0.81

This component is supportive.

Price Cycle -0.16

This component is a drag.

Historical rhymes

Closest resolved setups

The table keeps the model honest: these are the actual examples behind the selected-example statistics.

Ticker Week Similarity Outcome 4W return
PNE3
GER
2026-06-12 0.7357 higher +1.52%
BNT
TOR
2026-06-12 0.701 lower -1.81%
EIC
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6848 higher +2.07%
GECC
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6844 lower -7.61%
NESF
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6814 lower -2.21%
RNW
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6659 lower -2.49%
FSK
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6631 higher +1.66%
DEI
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6621 lower -0.62%
GLAD
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6607 higher +2.67%
FINV
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6584 lower -9.74%
SEVN
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6535 lower -0.12%
UPAB
GER
2026-06-12 0.6508 higher +5.48%
RC
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.65 lower -1.81%
FSFL
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6482 lower -1.63%
PAKKA
NSI
2026-06-12 0.6468 lower -6.42%
TIPT
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6466 higher +3.61%
TMV
GER
2026-06-12 0.6447 higher +1.02%
SLG
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6441 lower -3.69%
TCPC
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.6413 lower -9.78%
KREF
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6412 higher +3.29%
TRIG
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6407 lower -4.18%
STVN
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6404 higher +14.70%
UEN
GER
2026-06-12 0.6393 higher +19.84%
NICL
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6382 lower -4.06%
ZIN
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6381 higher +1.77%
AP-UN
TOR
2026-06-12 0.6372 higher +3.11%
NAH
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6366 lower -6.50%
HFG
LSE
2026-06-12 0.6355 lower -1.79%
LFT
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.6339 lower -8.78%
CLEAN
NSI
2026-06-12 0.6332 higher +0.06%
Distinctive drivers

What made this setup unusual

These are the largest deviations from the run baseline, renamed into plain market language.

  • Yield context 1.88912
  • Growth context 0.87697
  • Sector structure 0.85612
  • Factor stack 0.82824
This is historical analogue evidence, not advice. It becomes more useful when historical rate, average return, chart evidence, and nearby examples all point in the same direction.
Sample audit ยท Selected examples

How much evidence stands behind the reading?

30 distinct examples across 30 companies and 1 entry weeks. 2026-06-12โ€“2026-06-12.

Median return-1.13%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-7.73% to 3.80%10thโ€“90th historical percentiles
Largest company share3%Of selected examples
Weight-equivalent sample30.0Accounts for unequal weights, not dependence

The distribution, including losses

< โˆ’10%
0
โˆ’10 to โˆ’5%
6
โˆ’5 to 0%
11
0 to 5%
10
5 to 10%
1
โ‰ฅ 10%
2

0 unchanged outcomes. Bins use equal counts, not similarity weights; positive means strictly above zero.

Does one observation change the story?

Selected-example mean
-0.42%
Without the best outcome
-1.11%
Without the worst outcome
-0.09%
Non-overlapping within each company
-0.42% ยท 30 cases

The two exclusion checks show how much the extremes affect the mean. Companies can still share the same market shock; these checks do not prove independence.

Peer comparison

Does the result travel across comparison groups?

The headline 4-week rate blends these stored groups. The selected example chart and one-week calculation use a combined shortlist, so they will not necessarily reproduce that blend.

Comparison groupPositive rateMean returnMatchesBlend weightMedian similarity
Global
43.4%
-0.43%3055%0.65
SectorSame country
50.0%
-0.56%3030%0.61
IndustrySame country
53.3%
-0.70%3015%0.60

Groups can share examples. Their counts must not be added together as independent observations. Similarity measures resemblance, not a likelihood of success.

Research playbook

What would strengthen or weaken this case?

Continuation

Historical lean meets chart support

Not confirmed yet; needs price losing trend support before treating the downside read as live.

Look for the next completed weekly observation to sustain agreement in trend, relative strength and activity.

Conflict

Similar history, different conditions

If current price and direction oppose the historical lean, keep it as an unconfirmed case. Review the weaker peer group and whether the result depends on extreme examples.

Reassessment

The setup changes

A change in trend, fading relative strength or a materially different pattern can make the old matches less relevant. Recheck the pattern date and the next published reading.

Method and limits

Read the evidence in the right order

1. Compare like with like

Weekly price and indicator conditions are matched with resolved historical setups. Each listing appears once, using its most recent stored reading. Check the date and outcome horizon.

2. Separate frequency from payoff

The headline is a similarity-weighted blend of global, same-country sector and industry results where available. A high positive rate can coexist with large losses. Inspect the median, tails and individual examples.

3. Demand current confirmation

These are descriptive historical matches, not calibrated odds or an independently validated trading edge. Examples may overlap in time, share companies and reflect later data corrections. Costs, liquidity and delisted-company coverage need separate evaluation.

Evidence context