Pattern Intelligence ยท NASDAQ

NVDA quant read

NVIDIA Corporation ยท Technology

The nearest historical setups point to a positive historical outcomes, and the completed-week chart evidence supports it.

1-week positive match rate 79.8%

Historically positive ยท avg analogue +3.23%

Stronger historical lean
4-week blended positive rate 58.9%

Unclear ยท avg analogue +1.77%

Mixed historical lean
Completed-week chart evidence Chart evidence supports the read

3 of the core evidence blocks are supportive.

Evidence agreement Evidence not decisive

Confirmation is present while price holds above trend and relative strength remains firm.

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
229.28
Trend Line
208.27
Fair value
143.29
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 +0.28%

What weaker historical analogues tended to deliver.

Median example +5.26%

The middle outcome from the nearest resolved examples.

Upper quartile +9.28%

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 +10.09%

Price is comfortably above its medium-term trend.

Price vs Fair Value +60.02%

Price is stretched above the current Fair Value estimate.

Market Dynamics +0.01

Market Dynamics are neutral.

Relative Strength +0.02

Relative strength is not giving a clear edge.

Market Activity +0.19

This component is supportive.

Price Cycle +0.60

This component is supportive.

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
CMCX
LSE
2026-06-12 0.7493 higher +63.34%
BNY
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7384 higher +5.51%
C
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7365 higher +0.69%
ATZ
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7335 lower -5.03%
LFE
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7334 higher +18.77%
RRU
GER
2026-06-12 0.7322 higher +11.60%
LBS
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7295 higher +13.44%
BK
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7284 higher +12.22%
GS
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7259 lower -0.71%
RR
LSE
2026-06-12 0.723 higher +9.97%
AAMI
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.722 higher +3.97%
TRVC
GER
2026-06-12 0.7208 higher +1.40%
BAP
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7194 higher +8.46%
GOOG
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7192 lower -0.86%
BNC
LSE
2026-06-12 0.7169 higher +8.40%
RY
TOR
2026-06-12 0.715 higher +7.13%
NDA-FI
HEL
2026-06-12 0.7148 higher +2.84%
KBC
BRU
2026-06-12 0.7145 higher +4.89%
GOS
GER
2026-06-12 0.7144 lower -0.19%
DFN
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7142 higher +11.45%
INN1
GER
2026-06-12 0.714 higher +9.47%
H1SB34
SAO
2026-06-12 0.7126 higher +8.70%
MND
ASX
2026-06-12 0.7123 lower -2.31%
AVAL
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7121 lower -8.39%
SRBK
NASDAQ
2026-06-12 0.7112 higher +0.15%
IGM
TOR
2026-06-12 0.7112 higher +5.19%
GVA
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7096 lower -12.83%
CABK
MCE
2026-06-12 0.7086 higher +5.34%
ING
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7084 higher +7.22%
MFC
NYSE
2026-06-12 0.7083 higher +2.43%
Distinctive drivers

What made this setup unusual

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

  • Value context 0.85831
  • Sector structure 0.85619
  • Yield context 0.75914
  • Next-week expectancy 0.67055
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 return5.26%4 weeks after entry
Middle 80% of outcomes-2.58% to 12.34%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%
1
โˆ’10 to โˆ’5%
2
โˆ’5 to 0%
4
0 to 5%
7
5 to 10%
10
โ‰ฅ 10%
6

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

Does one observation change the story?

Selected-example mean
6.41%
Without the best outcome
4.45%
Without the worst outcome
7.07%
Non-overlapping within each company
6.41% 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
76.7%
6.51%3055%0.72
SectorSame country
33.3%
-5.66%3030%0.59
IndustrySame country
44.4%
-0.76%3015%0.49

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

Confirmation is present while price holds above trend and relative strength remains firm.

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