Skip to main content
Preview

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

Radar
HPQ

HPQ Research brief

HP Inc.

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$28.78(−9.58%)

Sagehood’s view on HPQ

HP Inc. · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

52Neutral50 is balancedScore unchanged since 2026-10-29 at 52; view unchanged at Neutral. Compare the two recordsConfidence 50 · 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

Dated research brief

WhyHP Inc.'s neutral read is driven by strong cash conversion against a thin margin, since free cash flow converts at 1.58x while the operating margin is 5.4%. The unresolved risk is a 19.0% gap above 200-day average with a MACD bear cross one day old.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against the neutral stance is that the shares screen cheap on the model. A $49.9 base fair value sits 74% above the $28.78 close and the comps median of $267.85 implies 830.7% upside, while the 28.46 support has held on 4 touches.This view cites figures this page declines: the model's $49.90 cash-flow estimate (+74% from the close; declined); the peer-multiple estimate (not shown). See Valuation range.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the weak-growth 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

No model fair value · the discounted cash flow model declined

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($49.90) and the peer-multiple estimate were 5.4 times apart; the peer-multiple estimate itself fails this page’s reliability check, so the disagreement may say more about the peers than about the model.

Close $28.78 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-07-31.

The peer-multiple estimate is not shown: it is the average of two peer-median multiples (price to earnings and price to sales) that imply prices 5.2 times apart, and it is 9.3 times the close.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$16.40
Base
$49.90
Bull
$118.90

The model’s own grid cells, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleHPQGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)10.98×32.93×8th
P/S0.45×7.08×0th
FCF yield14.47%2.54%100th

Those medians include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

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$28.78 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−9.58%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage7 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 3 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 7 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run52 on 2026-10-29 → 52 on 2026-10-30 (0 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 says why the peer-multiple estimate is not shown.

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 $28.78

+26.8% from 2026-06-25

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

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

Selected 2026-10-30. HPQ adjusted close. Continuous series. $28.78 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

2026-07-23 to 2026-10-30 · 37 publications

Each point is a verified published score. The line breaks where the research method changed (4 methods, numbered in the order they were first used), so scores are not joined across methods. Hollow points were published after their decision window (retrospective).

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3052Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2952Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-2858Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-2755Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-2657Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-2359Neutral60Method 4
2026-10-2258Neutral58Method 4
2026-10-2155Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-1650Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-0950Neutral30Method 4
2026-10-0752Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-0255Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0155Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-3053Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2954Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-2854Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2552Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective51Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2352Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-1857Neutral70Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective58Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective55Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-0458Neutral65Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective55Neutral60Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective57Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-2855Neutral63Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective55Neutral73Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective56Neutral73Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective53Neutral73Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective54Neutral73Method 3
2026-08-1456Neutral73Method 2
2026-08-1356Neutral73Method 1
2026-08-0754Neutral72Method 1
2026-08-0655Neutral63Method 1
2026-08-0455Neutral63Method 1
2026-07-3153Neutral70Method 1
2026-07-2358Neutral58Method 1

Specialists

7 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.

3 unavailable

HPQ research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

HP Inc. converts earnings to cash well, with trailing-twelve-month free cash flow of $3,881 million at a 1.58 conversion ratio, but trailing-twelve-month revenue of $59,162 million grew only 8.1% and the 5.4% operating margin is far below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue of $59,162 million grew 8.1% and free cash flow was $3,881 million at a 1.58 conversion ratio, but the 5.4% operating margin is far below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and equity is negative.

Why it matters now

Cash generation is strong relative to earnings, but a 5.4% operating margin and negative equity leave little buffer if hardware demand or pricing weakens.

What could change the view

Countercase: The 1.58 free-cash-flow conversion and 31.1% return on invested capital could be flattered by working-capital timing, and the input does not show whether negative equity reflects buybacks or losses. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the weak-growth claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
58
Evidence confidence
60
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
7.80
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.20
Weighted contribution
11.48
Business driver
Trailing-twelve-month revenue of $59,162 million grew 8.1% and free cash flow was $3,881 million at a 1.58 conversion ratio, but the 5.4% operating margin is far below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and equity is negative.
Mechanism
Cash generation is strong relative to earnings, but a 5.4% operating margin and negative equity leave little buffer if hardware demand or pricing weakens.
Countercase
The 1.58 free-cash-flow conversion and 31.1% return on invested capital could be flattered by working-capital timing, and the input does not show whether negative equity reflects buybacks or losses.
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
58
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.20
Weighted contribution
11.48

Risk specialist

Neutral

Score
45
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
5.03

Sector specialist

Neutral

Score
57
Evidence confidence
62
Weight in the score
0.16
Weighted contribution
8.97

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.04
Weighted contribution
2.09

News specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
45
Weight in the score
0.13
Weighted contribution
6.28

Price-trend specialist

Neutral

Score
52
Evidence confidence
50
Weight in the score
0.25
Weighted contribution
13.20

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
54
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
6.03

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

  • Valuation specialist: The valuation specialist did not vote on this run because the valuation model declined to give a fair value: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($49.90) and the peer-multiple estimate were 5.4 times apart; the peer-multiple estimate itself fails this page’s reliability check, so the disagreement may say more about the peers than about the model.
  • 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

HPQ: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

52

Neutral50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Neutral

Specialist score 58Evidence confidence 60
What the specialist sees

Trailing-twelve-month revenue of $59,162 million grew 8.1% and free cash flow was $3,881 million at a 1.58 conversion ratio, but the 5.4% operating margin is far below the 23.2% sector operating-margin median and equity is negative.

Why it matters

Cash generation is strong relative to earnings, but a 5.4% operating margin and negative equity leave little buffer if hardware demand or pricing weakens.

What argues against it

The 1.58 free-cash-flow conversion and 31.1% return on invested capital could be flattered by working-capital timing, and the input does not show whether negative equity reflects buybacks or losses.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the weak-growth claim.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 53.08. Sagehood research’s adjustment was −1.08. 52 on 2026-10-29 → 52 on 2026-10-30 (0 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. Price-trend specialist

    HPQ closed at 28.78, down 10.4% over 20 days but up 3.12% over 60 days, with rsi14D at 37.4 and rsi14W at 51.5. The 1-year channel slope is 60.4% and the 2-year slope is −8.1%, while 14-day ADX (trend strength) is 17.6.

  3. Risk specialist

    The current drawdown of −18.9% is shallower than the one-year maximum of −33.4%, with 20-day annualized volatility at 56.2% versus 60-day at 54.1% and 34 large-move days over the last 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 TTM revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the weak-growth claim.

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

HPQ: 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 model declined to give a fair value

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $28.78 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-07-31.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($49.90) and the peer-multiple estimate were 5.4 times apart; the peer-multiple estimate itself fails this page’s reliability check, so the disagreement may say more about the peers than about the model.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)

The discounted cash flow grid cells this run nominated, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Bear
$16.40−43% vs close
Base
$49.90+74% vs close
Bull
$118.90+313% vs close

The peer-multiple estimate is not shown: it is the average of two peer-median multiples (price to earnings and price to sales) that imply prices 5.2 times apart, and it is 9.3 times the 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, GEN, GLW, HPE, 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)10.98×

    Peer median 32.93× · middle half 20.61× to 49.15× · 8th percentile of the group

  • Price to sales0.45×

    Peer median 7.08× · middle half 5.01× to 12.88× · 0th percentile of the group

  • Price to bookNot computed in this research

    Peer median 8.32× · middle half 6.42× to 15.75×

  • Free cash flow yield14.47%

    Peer median 2.54% · middle half 1.33% to 4.83% · 100th 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: 5 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.

HP Inc. (HPQ) research | Sagehood