AI Signals — Weekly Model Behavior Summary

How five AI models' estimates and biases change — summarized weekly.

AI SIGNALS40 reports

Weekend Read essays (14)Weekly AI Signals reports (26)

Weekend Read essays

2026-08-19editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: We tried to break the herd

The panel's effective N — how many independent opinions five models actually produce — has sat near 1.1 since March; daily gap movements correlate at 0.91, meaning the panel moves as a single organism
A 1,440-call controlled experiment tried to break the herd with three escalating prompt interventions; effective N moved from 1.05 to 1.07 — and explicitly instructing models to be independent broke output validity (99%→83%) without buying any independence
A frontier-class reasoning model run through the identical protocol joined the herd on arrival (correlation 0.92, 72/72 valid outputs): herding is not a capability ceiling but a shared training prior that no prompt reaches
Meanwhile the standing views split further than ever — GPT −6.5% to DeepSeek +1.1% — and two configuration changes showed levels move overnight (a sampling fix, a provider-side model swap) while motion stays locked to the group
The conclusion is a two-axis honesty rule: never 'five independent forecasts' (the motion is one), never 'the models agree' (the levels differ by eight points, persistently) — the herd is accepted, and the information lives in the levels

2026-08-02editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: The gap that closed itself

On July 31 the panel's median valuation gap for Finland was +9.7% and the analyst consensus +7.6% — two unrelated instruments agreeing about an entire market for the first time in five months of daily measurement
The agreement is earned, not engineered: since July 14 the published estimate contains no analyst input — the old 70/30 blend was removed and three DCF conventions corrected, with the mechanical level shift published in advance
The US is the opposite story: panel −8.6% vs analysts +18.2% — a 27-point disagreement concentrated in the mega caps, with the model consensus placing Apple 52% and Tesla 48% below market price
Both readings have a defensible case: DCF enforces cash-flow discipline where US analyst targets erred +16pp toward optimism in our spring window — but DCF is structurally cautious about the optionality mega caps monetize
A preregistered measurement starting September scores both instruments against realized prices with the methodology fixed before the answer is known — the result publishes whichever way it lands

2026-07-12editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: The stock that's always on sale

On July 9, 20 of the 24 companies we track had a mean analyst price target above the market price — Nvidia's 58 analysts implied 49% upside. Read literally, the market is in permanent clearance
The lean is not news: targets average 28% above price (Brav & Lehavy 2003), and only 38% are met at the 12-month deadline while 64% are touched at some point along the way (Bradshaw, Brown & Huang 2013). A price target is a favorable scenario, not an expected value
Optimism carries a passport: in our spring window (Mar 17–Jun 9, ~1,400 company-days) US targets erred +16pp toward optimism; Finnish targets erred +1pp — effectively unbiased. Composition caveats apply, but the direction matches the cross-country literature
A leaning instrument is still an instrument: US analyst targets called 30-day direction right on 61% of company-days, and blending the analyst view with our AI panel's opposite-leaning raw DCF (−8pp) produced a lower error than either source alone
The practical reading: the level carries the convention, the change carries the news — and a wide analyst spread signals a genuinely contested valuation, the same thing our five-model spread measures

2026-06-28editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: The machines were the bears

Four months, 23 stocks, ~1,400 company-days: we set five AI valuations against Wall Street's analyst targets. The cliché inverts — the machines were the pessimists (−2.1% below market), the humans the optimists (+10.8% above). Our analysts' optimism replicates the ~+9% upward bias documented for decades
Neither calls direction: AI 54.6% correct over 30 days, analysts 54.4% — a statistical dead heat, exactly as the forecasting literature predicts for human target prices
In this rising market the optimists were closer: analysts beat the AI on magnitude (14.5% vs 19.0% average miss) on 57.4% of company-days — because nothing went wrong. A falling market, the one regime four months hasn't contained, would flip the sign
Better together: a one-third-AI, two-thirds-analyst blend beats both (12.7% miss, 59.7% direction). The AI is not a faster analyst — it is the missing correction to human optimism, and its value scales with that optimism (US +18.7% → blend 62% direction; Finland +2.2% → AI adds nothing)
Not 'AI beats Wall Street': on direction they are indistinguishable. The durable finding is structural — five models are a de-biasing counterweight to sell-side optimism, wrong in the opposite direction, and useful precisely because of it

2026-06-13editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Same prompt, five essays

We read every essay behind the numbers — 60 model outputs on one prompt, cross-checked against a structural scan of 8,257 valid outputs over 73 days. The numbers converge at ~90% correlation; the reasoning does not
The 5x detail gap: Claude writes 368 words per stock, GPT just 35. The target prices are weighted equally in our consensus — the analytical depth behind them is not
Confidence is inverted with depth. Gemini reports the highest confidence (0.74) with the least specific content; Grok the lowest with the densest quantitative anchoring. A reader treating confidence as a quality signal is misled
News integration is essentially a Claude monopoly: across the dataset Claude averages 3.0 news mentions per output, GPT 0.02. GPT writes as if news does not exist — and almost nobody except Claude hedges
Postscript: Engine v8 (June 9) replaced the tiered caps with a wide sanity band. The cap-pinning paradox the essay describes resolved exactly as predicted — all-five-pinned days fell to one, dispersion grew ~50%, AAPL/NVDA/XOM no longer land on the same cent. But no cap reform makes GPT read the news

2026-05-17editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Which AI is best at investing?

Calibration and backtesting are still in progress (Engine v8 / Prompt v11 due late May; meaningful 3-month accuracy data lands July 2026, 12-month March 2027). What we can compare today is observable behaviour, not predictive performance
Behavioural wins by category: Claude is best calibrated (raw output clipped only 27 % of the time vs 42 % for Grok), DeepSeek is 100 % reliable and the cheapest ($2.07/1K), Grok is the fastest (7.7s end-to-end), Gemini is the most willing to take extreme calls, and GPT is the only model whose answers are partially uncorrelated with the rest
The panel collapses statistically: effective number of independent estimators dropped from 1.21 (early March) to 1.10 (early May). Herd is intensifying, not loosening
But part of that 'agreement' is engine-produced: on 19 % of company-days all five models hit a cap (pre-cap raw spread on those days averages 15 pp, post-cap 0). On 41 % of days at least three models are capped. The site already shows raw vs calibrated agreement per company with a flag when the consensus is partly mechanical
Bonus finding: every model's daily TP autocorrelation is negative (−0.14 to −0.31). AI does not anchor on yesterday's view — opposite of the +0.3 to +0.5 anchoring well documented in human analysts. Whether this helps or hurts predictive accuracy is a question only the 3- and 12-month backtests will answer

2026-05-10editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Same earnings, five readings

Q1 2026 is the observatory's first fully observed earnings season. Across 18 reporters, mean five-model spread did not shrink: 6.3pp before earnings, 6.1pp after. Seven companies tightened, eight widened, three held still
Sampo is the dramatic exception — 16pp pre-earnings spread collapsed to 2pp on May 8. But four of five models were forced onto the analyst-TP floor (7.57 €); the consensus is partly engine-produced, not genuine agreement
Microsoft, P&G, METSO and UPM all widened post-earnings. Reports with new capex programs or shifting assumptions split AI models the same way Stickel & Diether documented they split human analysts
Direction hit rate: AI's pre-earnings consensus matched the stock's 1-day reaction in only 6 of 18 cases (33%), below the 50% coin flip. When AI predicted upside, the stock rose just 1 time in 7. The sample is thin but the pattern recurs
Agreement is not accuracy. Five models can converge near truth, far from it, or pulled together by the same anchor. Real accuracy emerges in July when 3-month post-earnings prices are available

2026-05-03editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Same prompt, five answers

On May 1, five AI models valued Meta on identical inputs. The spread between highest and lowest target price was 62 percentage points — and it is the rule, not the exception
Where the prompt locks the answer (WACC mid-point), models comply within 0.4pp; where it leaves slack (CAGR), they diverge by 2.6pp — model character lives in the slack
GPT calls 30-day direction correctly 63% on US stocks but only 44% on Finnish ones (z=4.3, p<0.001). Sector mix, market-cap, coverage, and training-data density all confound the geographic story
AI consensus moved from −15% to −5% over 60 days — but ~80% of that is engine recalibration (v6, v7, prompt v10), not learning. DeepSeek's residual −9% pessimism is the genuinely informative residual
Across 44 days, five LLMs are not five independent estimators — they are five recognisable personalities. Standardisation makes the differences visible, it does not erase them

2026-04-19editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Do AI Models Think — or Just Pattern-Match?

GPT rounds 99% of its margin assumptions to whole numbers — the same cognitive bias documented in human analysts (Herrmann & Thomas 2005)
All five models correlate 0.81–0.95 despite different architectures — the 'panel of independent analysts' is closer to a group of like-minded colleagues
Gemini and Grok form a temporal cluster: when one reverses direction, the other follows within 1–2 days. Claude is the most independent model
WACC is the only parameter where rounding drops (to 10%) — because the prompt provides a decimal anchor. Prompt design directly affects output precision
Five-model consensus is more than one opinion but less than five. Dispersion remains the most honest signal

2026-04-12editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: How Often and How Much Do AI Models Change Their Minds About Stocks?

Claude and Grok are the most stable: uncapped estimates unchanged on 63–64% of days. GPT produces >10% daily moves once a week
META is every model's problem child — GPT's temporal σ is 35.2%, more than double any other stock. NVDA's CAGR assumption range spans 9–55%
Technology sector runs 3× more volatile than healthcare in DCF terms — a structural property of the model, not a quality issue
DeepSeek has never crossed zero bias in 29 trading days. Training data pessimism, anchoring, or correct market view? We don't know yet
Temperature change from 1.0 to 0.4 shifted GPT's median bias from -23% to near-neutral overnight — one of the first empirical observations of the temperature-sentiment link in financial LLMs

2026-04-04editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: One Month In — What 2,760 AI Valuations Taught Us

After 24 trading days and 2,760 estimates, we cannot separate methodology effects from genuine model behavior — every engine or prompt change moved the numbers
Five distinct model personalities emerged: Claude is the only optimist (+1.0%), GPT has best directional accuracy (52.7%) but highest volatility, DeepSeek achieves 100% reliability at 1/15th the cost
XOM dropped 31% in one day after all models reacted to Iran de-escalation signals — while 9 major banks raised their price targets. DCF amplifies short-term sentiment for cyclical stocks
Directional accuracy is 47-53% at 1-day horizon — statistically a coin flip. The real test begins at 3 months (July) and 12 months (March 2027)
Model-specific calibration coming in late April when 30 days of v7 data is available

2026-03-28editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: When the Market Moves Toward AI

The gap between AI model estimates and market prices narrowed from -13% to -4% over 20 trading days
Two simultaneous factors: the market declined (MSFT -15%) AND our methodology improved (Engine v6→v7)
We cannot separate these effects — this is an observation, not evidence of predictive power
Model personality rankings unchanged for 20 days: Claude least bearish, GPT most bearish
Real test ahead: Q1 2026 earnings season will show if models react to new financial data

2026-03-21editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: Claude vs GPT — Two AI Analysts, Two Very Different Views

Claude (Sonnet 4.6) sees stocks as roughly fairly valued (−1.8% avg bias); GPT (4o-mini) sees them as significantly overpriced (−13.1%)
GPT’s bearish tilt nearly doubles for US stocks (−16.1%) vs Finnish stocks (−10.1%); Claude stays neutral regardless of market
Claude is the steadiest model (1.5%/day change) but fails JSON parsing more often; GPT is reactive (3.0%/day) but more reliable in production
14 days of data across 24 stocks: if you want to understand how AI thinks about value, one model is not enough

2026-03-07editorial · written by Claude

AI Signals — Weekend Read: What Five AI Models Taught Us About Stock Valuation

Early data from 460 valuations over 4 days: all five LLMs lean bearish, with average bias from -2.8% to -13.8% vs analyst consensus
GPT outputs exactly 2.0% terminal growth for every company (σ=0.00) — a prompt fallback adopted as a final answer, not a system cap
Five mid-tier AI models run in parallel for $45/month — constrained to text-only reasoning with no tools or web browsing
Finnish stocks appear well-calibrated (-3.3%) but US large-caps show -12.7% gap — hypotheses to track as data accumulates

Weekly AI Signals reports

2026-08-24 → 2026-08-28claude

AI Signals — Week 35, Aug 24–28, 2026

Every single model turned more bearish this week — a synchronized pivot that almost certainly reflects rising market prices rather than a collective change of analytical heart.
**Gemini** swung hardest, dropping **6.6pp** in bias to land at **-1.2%** average upside, crossing from bull to bear territory in a single week.
**TSLA** and **TIETO** both show zero dispersion — but for opposite reasons: one is a consensus disaster, the other a consensus dream, and neither tells you much about model quality.
**NVDA** carries the week's widest meaningful dispersion at **0.285**, signaling that the models genuinely disagree about what the AI infrastructure boom is actually worth.
**GPT** remains the most structurally bearish model at **-4.2%** average upside, yet posts the lowest CAGR forecast (**5.5%**) of the group — a coherent, if pessimistic, worldview.

2026-08-17 → 2026-08-21claude

AI Signals — Week 34, Aug 17–21, 2026

DeepSeek's median bias swung +6.4 percentage points week-on-week — the largest single-model shift in the panel — but this reflects a provider-side reasoning-mode change from late July, not a genuine change of view.
GPT and Grok remain the panel's lone bears, both printing negative average upside, while Claude, DeepSeek, and Gemini cluster in mild bull territory around +5–6%.
NVIDIA's consensus target sits 20.5% below spot after three consecutive days of falling model estimates — the models are growing visibly more uncomfortable with its valuation.
Technology is the week's biggest sector winner in model sentiment, gaining +5.5pp of implied upside, while telecom shed -7.9pp despite remaining the most-favoured single-company sector.
At $43 per thousand valuations, Claude costs nearly five times what Gemini charges — yet both post identical 98.3% validity rates, making the cost gap a live question for platform economics.

2026-08-10 → 2026-08-14claude

AI Signals — Week 33, Aug 10–14, 2026

Four of five models turned more bearish this week, with deepseek's bias swinging hardest — down 2.1 percentage points to -0.9% average upside.
TSLA and AAPL sit at the bottom of the conviction table with consensus upsides of -53% and -48% respectively, yet their dispersion scores are near zero — the models agree on pessimism, not just on direction.
TIETO commands a staggering +106% consensus upside with zero dispersion: every model is singing from the same hymn sheet, which is itself a red flag worth examining.
GPT remains the panel's most expensive pessimist at $20.31 per thousand valuations, capping 21.9% of estimates — nearly double deepseek's cap rate — while delivering the lowest average CAGR forecast of 5.4%.

2026-08-03 → 2026-08-07claude

AI Signals — Week 32, Aug 03–07, 2026

DeepSeek's median upside swung from -3.4% to +1.2% — not a change of view, but a provider-side switch to a reasoning-mode variant that is structurally less bearish.
GPT is the only model that hasn't moved its aggregate bias in weeks, sitting at exactly -4.5% both this week and last — a rigidity that is itself a signal.
Healthcare surged +18.2pp in model favor this week, the largest single-sector rotation in the dataset, while consumer stocks fell a further -8.8pp into disfavor.
NVIDIA's consensus target price was cut -13.6% in pure estimate revisions even as the stock trades at a -29.3% discount to that lower target — models are bearish but the market is more so.
TIETO and TSLA both show zero dispersion across models, but for opposite reasons: one is a unanimous buy, the other a unanimous sell.

2026-07-27 → 2026-07-31claude

AI Signals — Week 31, Jul 27–31, 2026

A provider-side switch flipped DeepSeek from its habitual bear to near-neutral overnight — the model didn't change its mind, its serving infrastructure did.
GPT is the week's outlier in the wrong direction: its bias fell 2.6 percentage points while every other model grew more bullish, and its cap rate of 16.7% is the highest in the panel by a wide margin.
AAPL and TSLA sit at the bottom of the consensus table with implied downsides of 52% and 48% respectively — the models collectively treat both as priced for a world that no longer exists.
Technology is the only sector to gain model favor this week (+4.0pp shift), even as GOOGL and META saw three consecutive days of falling consensus estimates.

2026-07-20 → 2026-07-24claude

AI Signals — Week 30, Jul 20–24, 2026

Every model turned more bullish this week, but the spread between the most optimistic (Claude at +4.6%) and most pessimistic (DeepSeek at -4.5%) remains a yawning 9 percentage points — the panel has never been more internally divided on direction.
TIETO's consensus upside of +122.7% with zero dispersion is a statistical ghost: five models agree on a number that implies the stock is worth more than double its price, yet not one of them wavers — a sign of shared blind spots, not shared conviction.
TSLA and AAPL sit at -46.8% and -52.0% implied downside respectively, both with near-zero dispersion, meaning the models are unanimously and confidently bearish on two of the most widely-held retail names in the world.
DeepSeek delivered a full week's work on 24 companies for $0.40 — roughly 12 cents per company — while Claude spent $4.98 for identical coverage, a 12x cost gap that buys marginally more optimism but not obviously better reasoning.

2026-07-13 → 2026-07-17claude

AI Signals — Week 29, Jul 13–17, 2026

The v8.1 engine change on July 14 mechanically lifted published targets by roughly 10–25 percentage points — most of this week's bullish shift is plumbing, not conviction.
Gemini swung from a -9.4% bear bias last week to +3.2% bull territory, the largest directional reversal of any model — but the engine change explains most of it.
Tesla and Apple saw the steepest pure estimate cuts of the week (-30.9% and -20.5% respectively), revisions untainted by the methodology shift.
KONE is the week's clearest model conviction story: three consecutive rising days and a +33.6% target-price revision that predates the engine change.
DeepSeek remains the outlier bear at -12.4% average upside, costs just $3.23 per thousand valuations, and still fails to parse 5% of inputs — the cheapest analyst in the room is also the grumpiest and least reliable.

2026-07-06 → 2026-07-10claude

AI Signals — Week 28, Jul 06–10, 2026

Every single AI model turned more bearish this week — a rare unanimous shift that says more about rising market prices than model pessimism.
Gemini made the sharpest pivot, swinging its average bias by -6.5 percentage points in a single week, the largest move of any model.
NVDA's consensus target price was slashed by -20% — the biggest pure estimate revision in the dataset — yet the stock still trades at a premium to model fair value.
TIETO commands an extraordinary +85% implied upside with near-zero dispersion, meaning the models agree on a number that almost no one in the market believes.
DeepSeek prices 13x cheaper than Claude per thousand valuations while running at roughly half the latency — the cost-efficiency gap between frontier models remains brutal.

2026-06-29 → 2026-07-03claude

AI Signals — Week 27, Jun 29–Jul 03, 2026

Claude made the boldest move of the week, swinging its average upside bias by +3.6 percentage points — the largest single-week shift of any model.
Technology was the week's standout rotation, jumping +6.7 points in model-consensus upside while healthcare shed nearly 10 points of favor.
NVIDIA's consensus target price rose 21.8% week-on-week, the largest absolute revision in the coverage universe — yet the stock still sits barely above fair value in model eyes.
DeepSeek and Grok remain the panel's permanent pessimists, both anchored near -16% average upside and showing almost zero willingness to revise that view.

2026-06-22 → 2026-06-26claude

AI Signals — Week 26, Jun 22–26, 2026

GPT swung from bearish to the most bullish model in a single week, a +4.3 percentage-point bias shift that dwarfs every other model's movement.
The AI consensus sees virtually no upside in the market's most-loved names: NVIDIA, Apple, and Tesla are all underwater on model targets.
Healthcare surged +10.4 points in model favor this week, the sharpest sector rotation in the dataset — driven by just two companies.
DeepSeek delivers valuations at $2.21 per thousand at one-sixth of Claude's latency, yet its bear bias of -5.9% has barely moved in weeks — raising questions about whether it is thinking or templating.

2026-06-15 → 2026-06-19claude

AI Signals — Week 25, Jun 15–19, 2026

Every single AI model turned more bearish this week — a rare unanimous sentiment shift that has nothing to do with any one stock.
GPT's average upside estimate collapsed from +3.2% to -1.2%, the sharpest single-week bias reversal of any model this period.
NVIDIA's consensus target price fell 21% in a week while its spot price sits 20% above what the models collectively think it's worth.
Healthcare lost 11 percentage points of model-implied upside in one week — the steepest sector deterioration in this dataset.
DeepSeek prices 18x cheaper than Claude per thousand valuations and matches it on validity — the cost-efficiency gap is widening, not narrowing.

2026-06-08 → 2026-06-12claude

AI Signals — Week 24, Jun 08–12, 2026

The v8 engine overhaul on June 9 is the single biggest story of the week — falling cap rates and shifting target prices are mechanical artifacts, not model opinion.
Technology staged the sharpest sector reversal of the week, swinging from -3.0% to +1.7% consensus upside, a 4.7-point shift that no other sector matched.
DeepSeek and Grok remain the only bears in the room, both posting negative average upside around -5.8% and -5.7% respectively, while their peers have turned bullish.
Tesla and Apple absorbed the steepest target-price cuts of the week — down 21.7% and 20.2% — a direct consequence of the engine change removing the old valuation floor.
Claude's cost-per-thousand-valuations is 18x that of DeepSeek, yet both produce negative-to-flat upside on the same bearish names — the efficiency gap is widening.

2026-06-01 → 2026-06-05claude

AI Signals — Week 23, Jun 01–05, 2026

GPT flipped from bearish to the only net-bullish model this week, swinging its average upside by 3.4 percentage points — the largest single-week bias shift in the panel.
Nokia's consensus target price sits at €7.07 against a spot of €13.89, a -49% implied downside that makes it the most condemned stock in the universe by a wide margin.
DeepSeek delivers valuations at $2.20 per thousand — roughly 18x cheaper than Claude — while maintaining comparable cap rates and only modestly lower confidence scores.
Energy and materials sectors deepened their already-negative model consensus this week, signalling that AI valuation frameworks are growing more pessimistic on commodity-linked names as a group.
Microsoft's consensus target price fell 13% week-on-week despite its spot price being essentially flat — a rare case of models repricing risk without a market catalyst.

2026-05-25 → 2026-05-29claude

AI Signals — Week 22, May 25–29, 2026

Every single AI model turned more bearish this week — a synchronized pessimism shift that is statistically unusual and worth taking seriously.
GPT made the most dramatic pivot: from a +2.2% bullish bias last week to -1.6% this week, a swing of nearly 4 percentage points in five trading days.
Technology lost the most model favor of any sector, shedding 3.1 points of consensus upside, even as Microsoft's individual target price rose 4.6%.
DeepSeek remains the cheapest model by a factor of 18x versus Claude, yet it carries the most bearish outlook of the panel at -8.1% average upside.
Nokia's target price was cut 6.8% by the models this week, pushing consensus implied upside to a deeply negative -47% — the most extreme valuation gap in the universe.

2026-05-18 → 2026-05-22claude

AI Signals — Week 21, May 18–22, 2026

Every single sector lost model favor this week — a rare, uniform bearish sweep that suggests macro anxiety is overriding stock-specific analysis.
Grok turned sharply more bearish, its bias dropping **3.4 percentage points** in a single week — the most dramatic single-model shift in the dataset.
**NOKIA** received the largest target price revision of the week at **+15.7%**, yet still sits **38% below spot** — a dispersion story that exposes deep model disagreement.
DeepSeek remains the cost anomaly of the panel: **17x cheaper than Claude** per thousand valuations while matching it on output validity and confidence.

2026-05-11 → 2026-05-15claude

AI Signals — Week 20, May 11–15, 2026

GPT is the only model bullish on the market this week, with a +2.8% average upside — every other model sees stocks as overvalued.
Gemini made the sharpest sentiment reversal of the week, swinging from +0.9% to -0.6% bias, a -1.5 percentage point shift in a single week.
Technology lost the most model favor of any sector, dropping 3.2 points to -1.1% consensus upside — the models are quietly souring on Big Tech.
DeepSeek prices 115 valuations for just $0.25, making it 19x cheaper than Claude while maintaining comparable output volume — the cost gap is becoming impossible to ignore.

2026-05-04 → 2026-05-08claude

AI Signals — Week 19, May 04–08, 2026

GPT posted the sharpest sentiment reversal of the week, swinging from +4.5% to +1.1% average upside — the largest single-model bias collapse in the dataset.
Gemini bucked every trend by turning bullish, flipping from -1.4% to +0.9% while all other models grew more pessimistic.
Nokia's consensus target price fell 10.4% in a single week yet still carries the widest dispersion in the universe at 0.204 — the models cannot agree on what it's worth, only that it's falling.
DeepSeek runs the entire 23-company universe for $0.25 — nineteen times cheaper than Claude — yet produces structurally identical terminal growth assumptions, raising hard questions about what premium inference actually buys.

2026-04-27 → 2026-05-01claude

AI Signals — Week 18, Apr 27–May 01, 2026

GPT swung from near-neutral to the most bullish model in the panel, posting a +4.2 percentage point bias shift in a single week — the largest move of any model this year.
Nokia's consensus target price surged 18.4% week-on-week yet the stock still sits 29% below that target, a gap that exposes deep model disagreement about a turnaround that may or may not be happening.
DeepSeek remains the panel's perma-bear at -4.6% average upside, costs 19x less than Claude per thousand valuations, and has not changed its mind in two weeks — make of that what you will.
Healthcare is the only sector where models collectively see meaningful upside (+22.5%), while energy has deteriorated further to -23.5% — the widest sector gap in the dataset.
Apple and Tesla are the panel's most convicted sells: both carry zero dispersion across models, meaning every AI agrees the stocks are overvalued — rare unanimity that is itself a signal worth scrutinizing.

2026-04-20 → 2026-04-24claude

AI Signals — Week 17, Apr 20–24, 2026

Four of five models turned more bearish this week — but GPT broke ranks, swinging from -0.7% to +0.3% average upside, the only model to move in the opposite direction.
Technology lost model favor despite remaining the most-loved sector, with consensus upside slipping from 7.2% to 4.5% — a quiet but meaningful retreat.
DeepSeek continues to deliver 100% parse validity at $2.29 per thousand valuations, roughly 18x cheaper than Claude while producing structurally coherent output every single time.
Wärtsilä earned the week's most persistent model conviction signal: four consecutive days of rising consensus targets with zero down-days and a 6.6% range — unusual discipline for an industrial name.

2026-04-13 → 2026-04-17claude

AI Signals — Week 16, Apr 13–17, 2026

Every single AI model turned bearish this week — a synchronized sentiment collapse that hasn't been seen in this dataset before.
Grok made the sharpest pivot, swinging from +2.1% bullish bias to -2.6%, a shift of nearly 5 percentage points in one week.
Technology lost half its model-assigned upside in seven days, falling from +14.6% to +7.2%, yet still leads all sectors — which tells you how bad everything else looks.
DeepSeek remains the cost anomaly of the AI analyst world: 18x cheaper than Claude per thousand valuations, with comparable output validity.

2026-04-06 → 2026-04-10claude

AI Signals — Week 15, Apr 06–10, 2026

Every single AI model turned more bearish this week — GPT led the retreat with a bias shift of -5.6 percentage points, the sharpest single-week sentiment collapse in the dataset.
DeepSeek is the only model with a negative average upside (-1.6%), making it the lone structural bear in a panel of cautious bulls.
Energy staged the week's most dramatic rehabilitation: model consensus upside improved by +9.2 points, yet the sector still sits at a deeply negative -26.6% — rescued from the basement, not yet off the floor.
Gemini's 82.6% validity rate is a persistent reliability gap that no amount of CAGR optimism can paper over — one in six valuations simply fails to parse.
The models collectively see XOM's consensus target price jumping +48.9% week-on-week, the single largest target revision in the dataset — a number that raises more questions than it answers.

2026-03-30 → 2026-04-03claude

AI Signals — Week 14, Mar 30–Apr 03, 2026

Four out of five models turned more bullish this week, yet the average consensus upside across 23 companies barely moved — the optimism is concentrated, not broad.
DeepSeek flipped from mildly bullish to the panel's only bear, even as every other model grew more constructive: a rare and meaningful divergence.
ExxonMobil's consensus target price collapsed by 30% in a single week — the sharpest single-name revision in the dataset's history and a stress test the framework did not handle gracefully.
Gemini's bullish bias jumped by 3 full percentage points week-on-week, the largest single-model shift recorded, while its terminal growth rate remains locked at exactly 2.00% for every single company it covers.
DeepSeek prices 115 valuations for $0.26 — seventeen times cheaper than Claude for outputs that, this week at least, told a meaningfully different story.

2026-03-23 → 2026-03-27claude

AI Signals — Week 13, Mar 23–27, 2026

GPT staged the most dramatic sentiment reversal of the year, swinging from a -7.3% bearish bias last week to +6.0% bullish — a 13.3-point lurch that dwarfs every other model's move.
Technology sector model consensus surged by 8.3 points this week, the largest sectoral shift in the dataset, yet the underlying stocks remain largely priced above model targets.
DeepSeek costs just $2.23 per thousand valuations versus Claude's $39.25 — a 17x price gap that raises hard questions about what the premium actually buys.
Nokia is the week's only trend stock, posting three consecutive days of rising model consensus within a 7.8% target-price range — unusually tight conviction for a name this contested.

2026-03-16 → 2026-03-20claude

AI Signals — Week 12, Mar 16–20, 2026

Every single AI model turned meaningfully more bullish this week — a synchronized shift that says more about shared training data than market fundamentals.
GPT remains the most pessimistic model at **-7.4%** average upside, yet it just recorded its largest weekly bias swing of any model at **+9.6 percentage points**.
Neste is the week's most brutal consensus call: models price it at **€16.66** against a spot of **€29.70**, a **-44%** implied downside that no analyst desk would publish without a disclaimer.
DeepSeek delivers full output quality at **$2.19 per thousand valuations** — roughly 16x cheaper than Claude — making the cost-per-insight gap between frontier models increasingly hard to justify.
Technology is the only sector where models see genuine upside (**+6.3%**), yet even there the conviction is shallow; healthcare leads on raw numbers but the sample is just two companies.

2026-03-09 → 2026-03-13claude

AI Signals — Week 11, Mar 09–13, 2026

Every model thinks the market is overvalued — average upside across all five models is negative, ranging from GPT's brutal **-17%** verdict to Claude's relatively sanguine **-3%**, a 14-percentage-point gap that tells you more about model personality than market reality.
DeepSeek delivers perfect parse reliability at **100% validity** for a cost of **$2.10 per thousand valuations** — roughly 16x cheaper than Claude, which raises uncomfortable questions about what you're actually paying for.
Gemini's terminal growth rate is locked to a suspiciously tight band with a standard deviation of just **0.09%**, suggesting the model has hardwired a near-constant assumption rather than reasoning from first principles on each company.
GPT is the only model to peg terminal growth at exactly **2.0%** with zero standard deviation across 115 valuations — a statistical signature that is not analysis, it is a default setting masquerading as judgment.

2026-03-02 → 2026-03-05claude

AI Signals — Week 10, Mar 02–05, 2026

Every model called the market overvalued this week — the most bearish cross-model consensus since this platform launched, with average downsides ranging from -3% to -15% across all five models.
GPT's terminal growth rate is locked at exactly 2.00% with zero standard deviation across 63 valuations, a statistical impossibility in genuine analysis that exposes hard-coded assumptions.
DeepSeek delivers the only perfect validity score (100%) at a cost of $2.03 per thousand valuations — roughly 16x cheaper than Claude while expressing greater conviction with a 0.65 confidence average.
Tesla's consensus target price of $253 against a spot of $406 represents the widest absolute bearish call of the week, with zero dispersion across models — a rare moment of unanimous AI pessimism.