American Battery Technology Co. (ABAT)
NASDAQIndustrialsWaste ManagementSnapshot 2026-09-04
$2.78+2.21%
Close 2026-09-04 · 1-day change
NASDAQIndustrialsWaste ManagementSnapshot 2026-09-04
QuarterlyIQ Insights · ABAT
Price, fair value, and the multiples that frame it on the same time axis. Scroll over the price chart to zoom.
Daily closes. Earnings/event dots inline.
A consensus fair price across 1 valuation methods, at three horizons. As of 2026-09-06. Estimates are diagnostics, not price targets. Short-horizon estimates are close to coin-flips, so confidence is a method-agreement read, not a prediction.
Today's peer multiple on trailing earnings, with no growth credited. This is the headline read.
Adds projected growth, so it leans optimistic by design. Read it as upside context, not a base case.
We take the 12-month fair value above and grade our own number — how the market prices this name versus what we'd justify, and where the two diverge.
At $2.78, ABAT's earnings are too small for P/E to mean much; on sales it trades at 23× p/s (7.1× the 3.2× p/s peer median, and 1.1× even its own history). At a normal multiple the price implies ~614% near-term growth vs our ~27% forecast. That gap is an optionality premium a financial-multiple model can't price — our $0.39 fair value covers only the as-is business, low confidence. Not investment advice.
One valuation read at a 12-month horizon, plus how price compares to peers and the company's own history.
The price sits about 614% above a flat-multiple fair value, while analysts forecast about 27% growth — well above our forecast. This describes what's priced in, not a forecast of the move.
TTM earnings are negative, so the read leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods rather than P/E. This is a data condition, not a forward call.
Score 100 = cheapest in the cohort, 0 = richest. Bars are filled left-to-right based on the peer-relative score (or PEG/self-history where shown).
Each method's implied share price per horizon. Provisional rows use a projected (historical-CAGR) growth input rather than analyst or management guidance.
| Method | Horizon | Est. price | Multiple | Per-share input | EPS source | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Peer P/S | 12M | $0.39 | 3.2 | 0.12 | TTM | high |
| Peer P/S | 3Y | $0.60 | 3.2 | 0.19 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
| Peer P/S | 5Y | $0.60 | 3.2 | 0.19 | Hist. CAGR(prov.) | medium |
A “consensus-then vs. actual-now” overlay is on the way — what our valuation estimate said on a past date versus where the price actually landed.
Not investment advice. Scores describe historical and current data; they are not forecasts of future returns. Consult a licensed advisor before making investment decisions.
A long-thesis check that carries the widest uncertainty of the three horizons.
Above average on quality vs scored peers
TTM earnings are negative. P/E-based methods drop out and the estimate leans on sales- and cash-flow-based methods. A data condition, not a forward call.
Only expensive valuation — not the full expensive x weak x turbulent stack. Regime (Mania) does not concentrate fragility.
For similar setups historically (n=20,154): about 33% saw a 20%+ drawdown, and roughly 76% of those did not recover within the year. These are historical base rates for the cohort, not a forecast of this stock.
Looks more expensive than peers.
Self-history needs ~20 months of data.
Trailing four: 2025-Q3, 2026-Q1, 2026-Q2, 2026-Q3