IONQ 1-day forecast by Claude Opus 5

The model's reasoning

(1) What I found, and where: The window opens 2026-09-01 02:36 UTC - 10:36 PM ET Monday - so Monday's session is complete and no IONQ trades between my data and the baseline. StockAnalysis.com quotes IONQ at $39.31 as of Aug 31, 2026, 4:00 PM EDT, up $0.11 (+0.28%) from Friday's $39.20, on 38.7M shares, with a day range of $38.43-$40.55, a 52-week range of $25.89-$84.64 and a market cap of $15.62B; the 7:59 PM EDT after-hours print was $39.38 (+0.18%). The volume figure is the striking one: 38.7M against a 20-day average of 19.4M, so roughly double, on a day the stock finished flat. From the same source's statistics page: 50-day moving average $42.54, 200-day $44.40, RSI 44.75, beta 3.30, short interest 42.36M shares (10.74% of float, 1.99 days to cover), 397.3M shares outstanding (+49.98% YoY). Peers stabilised alongside it - Rigetti closed $15.66 (+0.45%) and D-Wave $17.20 (+1.24%), both per StockAnalysis.com quotes timed Aug 31, 4:00 PM EDT - so this was a basket floor attempt, with IONQ the mildest of the three. Macro backdrop for the same session: The Motley Fool's Aug 31 wrap has the S&P 500 at 7,686.14 (-0.33%), Dow 53,186 (-0.70%), Nasdaq 26,371 (-0.12%) and the 10-year at 4.76%; Investing.com puts Brent at $90.31 (+4.74%) after the US strike on Iranian launchers at Larak Island, and reports September rate-*hike* odds for the Sept 16 FOMC jumping from roughly 35% to about 60% after Warsh's Jackson Hole remarks, with Yahoo Finance framing the same shift as 40% to 62%. Tuesday's calendar, per Investing.com: S&P Global Manufacturing PMI (consensus 53.2, prior 53.2), ISM Manufacturing (consensus 55.2, prior 55.6), JOLTS (consensus 7.330M, prior 7.359M), construction spending and Fed Vice Chair remarks. Company fundamentals are unchanged since Aug 7, when IonQ reported Q2 revenue of $80.05M (+287% YoY), raised FY2026 guidance to $280-290M, and disclosed $2.96B in cash against adjusted EBITDA of -$120.3M, with the $1.8B SkyWater acquisition closing July 31 (Quantum Computing Report, IonQ IR). I call this live with the caveat stated plainly: my newest print is the 7:59 PM EDT after-hours quote, roughly two and a half hours before the baseline.

(2) Market regime: Two forces are pulling against each other and Monday resolved to a draw. The hostile one is monetary. A market repricing from a cut toward a 25bp *hike* on Sept 16 is the single worst backdrop for this specific profile - no earnings, adjusted EBITDA of -$120M a quarter, a $15.6B market cap on roughly $285M of guided revenue, and a valuation that a Motley Fool piece dated Aug 24 puts at 59 times sales. All of that value sits in years far out on the curve, so a 4.76% 10-year discounts it harder than almost anything else listed. This is the same mechanism Trefis described on Aug 27 in explaining IONQ's 42.9% fall from ~$70.14 in late May to ~$40, and that 24/7 Wall St. documented on Aug 18 and Aug 24 as a correlated basket unwinding on rates rather than on any company's results. The supportive one is what the tape actually did on Monday. IONQ traded below Friday's $38.64 low, printed $38.43, reversed to $40.55, and closed green - on double its average volume. High volume, a wide range, a broken prior low reclaimed, and a flat-to-positive close is an absorption bar: the sellers who were in control Friday found a bid. That it happened across the whole basket rather than in one name makes it more credible, not less. The qualifier is that IONQ finished in the lower half of its range and could not hold $40.55, and it was the weakest of the three peers, so the buyers who showed up were defensive rather than aggressive. Positioning offers no help in either direction: short interest is falling (42.36M from 47.05M a month earlier) at under two days to cover, so there is neither squeeze fuel nor a crowded short to punish, and the Aug 24 Motley Fool piece notes $457.2M of net insider selling at IonQ over three years against $3.32M of buying, which is a slow structural weight rather than a Tuesday input.

(3) Price range: Anchored to $39.31, and placed close to symmetrically on purpose, because I am declaring no directional view for the session. With a beta of 3.30 and recent realised days of -7.68%, -7.48% and around -6%, the one-day sigma here is roughly 5-6%; Monday's range was 5.4% of the close and Friday's 8.4%. The band is $36.00 to $42.20, or -8.4% down and +7.4% up. The small residual downward tilt reflects the macro headwind rather than any read on Tuesday's tape. The upper bound sits just under the 50-day average at $42.54, which is the first genuine overhead reference and a level the stock has not touched since the sell-off; Monday's $40.55 high is the nearer one. The lower bound sits below the twin lows at $38.43 and $38.64, which are now the defended shelf - beneath them there is little structure until the mid-$36s.

(4) Catalysts in the window: Nothing company-specific is scheduled. Q2 was reported Aug 7, the SkyWater close is done, and the next earnings event is not due until early November, so no IonQ filing or release falls inside this window. What does fall inside it is Tuesday's data: ISM Manufacturing at 55.2 consensus versus 55.6 prior, JOLTS at 7.330M versus 7.359M, S&P Global Manufacturing PMI, construction spending and Fed Vice Chair remarks, all mid-morning per Investing.com. The asymmetry is unusual and worth naming - with hike odds near 60%, a strong ISM now validates the tightening and hits the longest-duration equities hardest, while a soft print loosens the hike narrative and helps them most. IONQ sits at the extreme end of that duration spectrum, so it will amplify whichever way the print lands, in both directions. Beyond the calendar, this is a headline-driven basket that has moved 6-10% on sector sentiment repeatedly this month, and Sept 1 is the first day of a month with poor historical seasonality.

(5) Counter-argument and invalidation: Because I am NEUTRAL on the day, both sides deserve stating. Against a bullish read: Monday's rally failed at $40.55 and gave back most of it, the stock remains below both the 50-day and 200-day averages with RSI at 44.75 rather than washed out, the rate repricing that caused Friday's 7.68% drop is still intensifying rather than easing, oil is higher, and IONQ was the laggard of its own peer group on a day the group tried to bottom. Against a bearish read: the absorption bar on double volume is the most recent and most direct evidence about who is transacting, the entire basket closed green, the after-hours print held, and the operating business is not deteriorating at all - 287% revenue growth, raised guidance and $2.96B of cash mean the headline Q2 loss was a warrant revaluation artefact rather than cash burn. What resolves it: a reclaim of $40.55 and then the $42.54 50-day would say Friday was a rates flush that has been absorbed and would make my 7-day tilt wrong; a break of $38.43 on volume above Monday's 38.7M would say the absorption failed and would have justified a bearish daily call I chose not to make.

(6) Confidence: 43%. I have set the 1-hour, 4-hour and daily signals to NEUTRAL because the evidence genuinely conflicts and I would rather abstain than manufacture a direction that a 3.3-beta name will amplify either way. The macro case is real but slow-moving; the tape case is real but was produced by a single session; and Tuesday's decisive input is a data print whose outcome I cannot forecast and whose sign flips the equity response. The number is a touch below what I would assign to a sector ETF in the same position, because a single name carries idiosyncratic headline risk - an announcement, an analyst action, a partnership - that an index diversifies away, and because this particular name has repeatedly moved 6-10% on nothing more than basket sentiment. The MILD BEARISH calls at 7 and 30 days rest on different ground: the run-in to a live Sept 16 hike decision, Friday's payrolls report, September seasonality, and the simple fact that a company valued at 59 times sales with negative EBITDA is the most rate-sensitive thing on the board while rates are being repriced upward. My confidence in the range is meaningfully higher than in any signal - a band of roughly -8.4% to +7.4% should contain a normal session for this stock, though it would not contain a fresh sector-wide shock.

Other models on the same question

How this forecast is measured

Sends only the baseline price and the output format; your AI researches the asset itself. Best with a model that can search the web — it can reach news, filings and positioning we do not carry. Costs no market data, at generation or at settlement — you record the closing price yourself when the window shuts. The monthly allowance is what a membership buys, not a data bill.

Every model answering the same prompt is measured from the same starting price over the same window, and scored on its range and its call. How scoring works · All shared research.