Skip to main content
Preview

Research from Friday’s close · next update overnight after Monday’s close

Radar
GEN logo unavailable

GEN Research brief

Gen Digital

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$29.13(+3.30%)

Sagehood’s view on GEN

Gen Digital · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

62Neutral50 is balancedScore change +6 since 2026-10-29, from 56 to 62; view unchanged at Neutral. Compare the two recordsConfidence 62 · It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.Confidence across the 100 names in this research run: 45 to 70, median 55.
How to read this score

In Sagehood30 · book 2026-10-30

Dated research brief

WhyGEN screens neutral because a 41.8% operating margin and a 16.19% earnings reaction meet 2.81x net debt to EBITDA. The unresolved risk is that price sits 20.4% above its 200-day average after the spike.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against the neutral stance is that the earnings beat may be a durable re-rating rather than a one-day spike.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median with trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the quality claim.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Neutral view.

Sagehood does not check this condition automatically. See research limitations below.

Valuation range

Close vs. model fair value · discounted cash flow

Bear
$21.70
Base
$70.80
Bull
$135.80

Base case +143% vs. the 2026-10-30 close, on fundamentals to 2026-10-02. Peer-implied median $61.38 from 3 peer-median multiples. Those medians include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”. Estimates from this research’s valuation model, not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleGENGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)14.79×32.93×19th
P/S3.36×7.08×15th
P/B6.41×8.35×24th
FCF yield10.04%2.54%96th
Score details & research limitations9 unavailable fields
Conditions Sagehood can check on its ownNot available in this run. A written break condition is not an automated check; this run does not provide a source-linked rule Sagehood can verify on its own.

Where the break condition comes from: Sagehood research took this condition from the financial specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Neutral view.

How to read this research

The score expresses the published research view. 50 is balanced.

Bullish, Neutral or Bearish beside the score is the direction of that view, set by the research from the score: 65 and above is Bullish, 45 to 64 Neutral, 44 and below Bearish.

Confidence is how well the evidence supports this view, not which way it points: Sagehood research is asked to keep it no higher than its most confident specialist, and lower when the specialists disagree or much of the evidence is weak. It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.

Source verification checks the identity and origin of evidence. It does not prove that a claim is correct or that an investment will succeed.

Valuation estimates depend on their inputs and assumptions. They are not guaranteed future prices.

Retrospective research looks back at an earlier period. It is not a verified record of a decision made then using only information available then.

Unavailable is not zero. Read the adjacent reason: information may be missing, unverified or deliberately withheld.

How Sagehood works

The session this view is fixed to

Close$29.13 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day+3.30%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage8 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 2 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 8 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run56 on 2026-10-29 → 62 on 2026-10-30 (+6 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.
The run this is compared withResearch of 2026-10-29

Not in this run: Run-specific score definition, Confidence band, Horizon, Why the score changed, Today's unexplained move and Blockers.

What this was built from

Filing cited in the evidenceNot recorded on this card. The newest filing on record is under Key financials, and recent filings are listed under SEC filings.
Peer set27 names in Information Technology, listed with how they were chosen under “Valuation & peers”. The valuation range shows the peer-implied median from 3 peer-median multiples.

Not in this run: Company profile date and Standing disclosure.

Not available in this run

9 fields are unavailable. Each is identified with its reason above; missing information is not zero or a negative research signal.

Price context

· adjusted close $29.13

+25.5% from 2026-06-25

Recent price-basis check: 2026-10-02 to 2026-10-30 (20 sessions). Economic comparability outside this window remains unchecked.

GEN adjusted close
Adjusted price · USD · viewing 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-30

Selected 2026-10-30. GEN adjusted close. Continuous series. $29.13 US dollars.

90 daily adjusted-price observations through 2026-10-30, ending at the 2026-10-30 research date. The final point is a dated final close. Shown for context, not point-in-time research evidence: the research used the prices recorded with it.

Use the arrow keys on the chart to step through observations.

Published score history

2026-09-28 to 2026-10-30 · 16 publications

Each point is a verified published score.

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3062Neutral62Current method
2026-10-2956Neutral65Current method
2026-10-2852Neutral55Current method
2026-10-2752Neutral55Current method
2026-10-2650Neutral49Current method
2026-10-2352Neutral55Current method
2026-10-2252Neutral48Current method
2026-10-2155Neutral55Current method
2026-10-1650Neutral60Current method
2026-10-0950Neutral55Current method
2026-10-0744Bearish48Current method
2026-10-0244Bearish60Current method
2026-10-0144Bearish50Current method
2026-09-3041Bearish55Current method
2026-09-2941Bearish55Current method
2026-09-2844Bearish45Current method

Specialists

8 of 10 published specialist analyses are available.

Each specialist’s view is shown as the published research recorded it; supporting detail appears only when it was recorded with that same view.

2 unavailable

GEN research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

Gen Digital's trailing-twelve-month revenue of $5,228 million rose 16.9% and trailing-twelve-month operating margin of 41.8% is well above the 23.2% sector operating-margin median, with free cash flow conversion of 1.46.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue was $5,228 million, up 16.9% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 41.8% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median. Free cash flow conversion was 1.46 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, while net debt to EBITDA was 2.81 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.

Why it matters now

Strong margins and cash conversion support the subscription software economics, but net debt to EBITDA of 2.81 above the sector median and decelerating quarterly growth from 27.0% to 12.2% temper the quality of the trajectory.

What could change the view

Countercase: The read would be wrong if the deceleration is seasonal rather than structural, and interest coverage is not available, so the debt-service burden behind the 2.81 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured. Falsifier: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median with trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the quality claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
52
Evidence confidence
80
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
10.40
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.18
Weighted contribution
9.39
Business driver
Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $5,228 million, up 16.9% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 41.8% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median. Free cash flow conversion was 1.46 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, while net debt to EBITDA was 2.81 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.
Mechanism
Strong margins and cash conversion support the subscription software economics, but net debt to EBITDA of 2.81 above the sector median and decelerating quarterly growth from 27.0% to 12.2% temper the quality of the trajectory.
Countercase
The read would be wrong if the deceleration is seasonal rather than structural, and interest coverage is not available, so the debt-service burden behind the 2.81 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured.
Contributions & coverage details

Specialist contributions

Each specialist’s recorded numbers, in the usual specialist order, as recorded: nothing is re-ranked or recalculated. Weights and contributions show two decimals; hover for the exact value.

Financial specialist

Neutral

Score
52
Evidence confidence
80
Weight in the score
0.18
Weighted contribution
9.39

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
40
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.08
Weighted contribution
3.06

Sector specialist

Neutral

Score
62
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
7.00

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.03
Weighted contribution
1.43

News specialist

Bullish

Score
68
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.12
Weighted contribution
8.06

Price-trend specialist

Bullish

Score
68
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.23
Weighted contribution
15.36

Valuation specialist

Neutral

Score
55
Evidence confidence
65
Weight in the score
0.18
Weighted contribution
9.94

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
54
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.08
Weighted contribution
4.13

Published specialist analyses unavailable: Geopolitics specialist, Social-media specialist. No specialist result is inferred.

  • Geopolitics specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.
  • Social-media specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.

How this insight was formed

Each specialist view shown here is checked against the published research files. Sagehood research combined those views into the one Research Score above.

Evidence & method

Inspect the reasoning, source records and valuation behind this dated view.

Sagehood research reasoningSpecialist reasoning, selected statements and filing context
Accepted publication2026-10-30 researchNext eligible session 2026-11-02point-in-time

GEN: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

62

Neutral50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Neutral

Specialist score 52Evidence confidence 80
What the specialist sees

Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $5,228 million, up 16.9% year over year, and trailing-twelve-month operating margin was 41.8% against the 23.2% sector operating-margin median. Free cash flow conversion was 1.46 versus the 1.01 sector free-cash-flow-conversion median, while net debt to EBITDA was 2.81 against the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median.

Why it matters

Strong margins and cash conversion support the subscription software economics, but net debt to EBITDA of 2.81 above the sector median and decelerating quarterly growth from 27.0% to 12.2% temper the quality of the trajectory.

What argues against it

The read would be wrong if the deceleration is seasonal rather than structural, and interest coverage is not available, so the debt-service burden behind the 2.81 net debt to EBITDA is unmeasured.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median with trailing-twelve-month revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the quality claim.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 58.36. Sagehood research’s adjustment was +3.64. 56 on 2026-10-29 → 62 on 2026-10-30 (+6 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.

Evidence Sagehood research weighed

These selected claims are evidence Sagehood research weighed, not a reconstruction of the numeric adjustment.

Claims as this research published them. Sagehood confirms each claim and its support were published together with this research. That is not an independent check, and it does not prove the claim is accurate or predict future performance.

  1. Financial specialist

    Same statement as under “What the specialist sees” above.

  2. News specialist

    Gen Digital's Q2 earnings coverage on 2026-10-29 included a tier-1 Barrons.com item with one-day return relative to SPY 16.19 percentage points and a GuruFocus.com item with one-day return relative to SPY 16.19 percentage points, while material-news net tone was 0.4, good-news days followed by outperformance 6, good-news days followed by underperformance 0 and an unexplained 4.37% excess move on 2026-10-22.

  3. Price-trend specialist

    Close $29.13 is 20.4% above 200-day average and 9.9% above 50-day average, with a golden cross 79 days old; the 1-year channel slope is 7.6% per year and the 90-day slope is −22.8% per year.

Sagehood research decision

The investment case, main risk and break condition are the ones shown under Sagehood’s view at the top of this page.

Recorded break condition
Break condition as kept in the decision trail

A later reading showing net debt to EBITDA above the 0.67 sector net-debt-to-EBITDA median with TTM revenue growth below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the quality claim.

Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

GEN: This run has no checked links from its claims to their evidence. The specialists’ writing is shown as recorded, and no missing evidence is filled in.

Accepted research

Research dated 2026-10-30.

How this research was made

This research is AI-generated and is not investment advice.

Research date
2026-10-30
Valuation & peersInput limits notedFair-value cells, peer multiples and the inputs behind the range

Valuation the research computed

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $29.13 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-10-02.

Fair value by discounted cash flow, at the cells this run nominated.

Bear
$21.70−25% vs close
Base
$70.80+143% vs close
Bull
$135.80+366% vs close

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $61.38 (+110.7% vs close)

Peers: the 27 Liquid 100 names in Information Technology that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The 27 names

AAPL, AMD, APH, AVGO, CRM, CRWD, CSCO, DELL, GLW, HPE, HPQ, INTC, KLAC, LRCX, MCHP, MRVL, MSFT, MU, NOW, NVDA, ON, ORCL, PLTR, QCOM, SMCI, SNDK, WDC.

Multiples against the peer group

Information Technology · 27 companies in the group

Sector median includes AVGO, whose per-share figure failed the share-basis check in this research.

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)14.79×

    Peer median 32.93× · middle half 20.61× to 49.15× · 19th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales3.36×

    Peer median 7.08× · middle half 5.01× to 12.88× · 15th percentile of the group

  • Price to book6.41×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.43× to 15.99× · 24th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield10.04%

    Peer median 2.54% · middle half 1.33% to 4.83% · 96th percentile of the group

This run declares Enterprise value to EBITDA and computes no value for it, for this company or for its peer group.

Evidence limits: 9 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; depreciation and amortization were available but not used because this version does not compute an EV/EBITDA multiple.

Includes the currently displayed specialist or comparison, not every specialist. Dates and limitations remain attached.

Sagehood research is for general information. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Gen Digital (GEN) research | Sagehood