NYSE:CLVT Clarivate Plc

ISIN: JE00BJJN4441
Information Services & AnalyticsProfessional ServicesSubscription DataTurnaround · High Leverage
NYSE · HQ London (Jersey-incorporated) · Reports in USD · Mkt cap ~$1.4bn · Beta 1.39 Analysis Status: Donatien Pick
All figures in USD (Clarivate reports in US dollars despite its UK/Jersey domicile).
$2.23
52-wk 1.66–4.77 (near lows)
12 Jul 2026 · Signal v6
DISCLAIMER: This is a quantitative framework for educational purposes only. It is not financial advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.

Clarivate Plc

Clarivate is an information-services and analytics company that sells structured scientific, intellectual-property and brand data by subscription. Its flagship franchises are the Web of Science citation database (used by universities, funders and researchers), the Derwent patent-intelligence suite and CompuMark/MarkMonitor trademark and brand-protection tools. The business is a classic 'toll road' on research and IP workflows: ~86% of revenue is recurring and ~68% is subscription, sold on multi-year contracts to sticky institutional and corporate customers, at a ~67% gross margin and ~42% adjusted-EBITDA margin. Clarivate was assembled through a debt-funded roll-up (including the 2021 ProQuest acquisition), which is why it carries ~$4.1bn of net debt against a flat-to-shrinking top line. For a reader: think of it as a cash-generative, high-margin data-subscription franchise with a durable installed base, but one that is over-levered, barely growing, and now facing an open-access and general-AI-search threat to the value of its gated databases.

HorizonSignalComposite ScoreConfidenceKey Driver
Short-term (1–3 mo)HOLD3350%value-trap: cheap but broken tape + distress gate
Medium-term (6–12 mo)HOLD4048%cheap on cash, but flat growth + 4.2x leverage cap it
Long-term (3–5 yr)HOLD4448%turnaround optionality vs structural AI/open-access threat
Next update: 2026-07-30 — Q2 2026 earnings ~end-Jul +1d (est.); capped at +14d default
Table of Contents
1Five-Pillar Scorecard2Hard Gates & Do-Not-Buy Status3Pillar Detail: Business Quality4Pillar Detail: Valuation Attractiveness5Pillar Detail: Underlying Drivers6Pillar Detail: Economic Alignment7Pillar Detail: Entry/Exit Timing8Economic Event Risk9Multi-Timeframe Technical Analysis10Price Chart (6-Month Daily)11Scenario Summary12Entry / Exit Rules13Position Sizing Context14Calibration Snapshot15Data Sources & Methodology
1

Five-Pillar Scorecard

Five independent scores — each 0–100 with its own confidence. The three fundamental pillars (Quality / Valuation / Timing) set the base BUY/HOLD/SELL via the Decision Matrix; the two context pillars (Underlying Drivers, Economic Alignment) then amplify a BUY to STRONG BUY or a SELL to STRONG SELL when both corroborate.

Business Quality

42
medium (turnaround)
conf 60%

Valuation Attractiveness

70
attractive (value-trap risk)
conf 70%

Entry/Exit Timing

22
weak
conf 60%

Underlying Drivers

40
Headwind
conf 55%

Economic Alignment

45
Neutral
conf 55%
2

Hard Gates & Do-Not-Buy Status

Binary safety checks — any TRIGGERED gate is a hard cap regardless of the scores above; CAUTION gates are sizing notes.
Gate 1 — Financial Distress
⚠ FIRES (interest-coverage arm). EBIT interest coverage 0.47× (< 1.5×) — GAAP EBIT is crushed by ~$736m/yr of acquired-intangible amortization. On adjusted EBITDA cash coverage is a healthier ~3.7×. Net Debt / Adj-EBITDA ≈ 4.2× (company cites 4.0×) — below the 5× line but elevated on a flat-to-declining top line. Effect: caps the signal at HOLD (the base matrix already reads HOLD, so this reinforces rather than decides).
⚠️
Gate 2 — Earnings Event Risk
Q2 2026 results due ~end-July (est.). CLVT has a history of >5% post-print moves (Q1 gapped up ~+15%). Timing confidence noted as capped near the print.
Gate 3 — Valuation Ceiling
Does NOT fire. On the warranted-multiple anchor CLVT is deep in the Attractive band (actual/warranted ≈ 0.23), well below any rich line — this is a cheap name, not an expensive one.
⚠️
Gate 4 — Accounting / Dilution
No SBC-dilution red flag (share count is FALLING — 690m → 641m over the last year via buybacks). But note the large, persistent gap between GAAP (net loss) and company-adjusted EPS ($0.70–$0.80 guide), driven by ~$736m/yr amortization + recurring impairments (a further $225–250m goodwill impairment is expected on the LS&H sale). This is disclosed and non-cash — flagged for transparency, not scored as a red flag.
Gate 5 — Regulatory / Binary
No pending binary regulatory event. The Altaris divestiture needs regulatory approval to close but is a positive (deleveraging), not a binary risk to the equity.
Gate summary — one gate fires, no Do-Not-Buy. Gate 1 (Financial Distress) fires on the interest-coverage arm and caps the signal at HOLD; because the base matrix already reads HOLD across all three horizons, the cap is confirmatory. Critically, the three tempting Do-Not-Buy triggers were checked and do not fire: Trigger 1 (leverage + rising rates) needs rates rising and floating/near-maturity debt — rates are on-hold (Higher-for-Longer, not hiking), the near-term maturity walls are cleared (Term Loan B pushed to 2031, 2026 notes redeemed), and a $600m divestiture is earmarked for paydown; Trigger 3 (persistent negative revisions) needs the price to not have repriced — CLVT is down ~53% off its highs and sitting near the 52-week low, so the shoe has already dropped; Trigger 5 (structural threat) is a real, elevated long-term risk (open-access + AI-search disintermediation of the databases) but is already reflected in a distressed multiple, so it is carried in the Bear case and Competitive section rather than fired as a hard override. Discipline cuts both ways: a 2-handle price is not automatically a buy, and a scary 0.47× coverage ratio is not automatically insolvency.
3

Pillar Detail: Business Quality

A deep dive into the Quality score: business economics, moat, ROIC and the industry benchmark.
Business Quality — Pillar Score
Medium — sticky, high-margin, cash-generative, but flat-to-declining and over-levered
42
conf 60%
Business Quality
Confidence 60%
42/100

Lifecycle: Turnaround / Restructuring (Stage 6). Clarivate is a mature, ex-LBO information-services roll-up whose organic revenue has been flat-to-negative for three-plus years and which posts GAAP net losses under a heavy amortization load. It is actively restructuring: a “Value Creation Plan” (simplify the model, lift margins and FCF, push AI products) plus the July-2026 agreement to sell its Life Sciences & Healthcare segment to Altaris for $600m to accelerate debt paydown. So we score it on turnaround metrics — recurring-revenue durability, margin and FCF, and balance-sheet survivability — not on growth multiples.

Sub-signalValueBenchmark / contextScore
Revenue trajectory (organic)2024 −1.4% · 2025 −0.1% · Q1’26 +0.6%; 2026 guide +0.75–+2.25% recurringInfo-services peers (RELX, TRI) grow mid-single-digits — CLVT is a laggard28
Recurring / subscription mixRecurring 86.5% · Subscription 67.9% (+1.7% organic) · Transactional 13.6% (−2.0%)High recurring base = sticky revenue; transactional in secular decline72
ProfitabilityGross margin ~67% · Adj-EBITDA margin ~42% (guide 42.0–43.5%) · GAAP: net lossAdjusted margins are genuinely strong for the sector; GAAP distorted by amortization66
Cash generationFCF $365m (2025) · 2026 guide $365–$435m · FCF/EV ~7%Real, recurring FCF — the strongest part of the story; funds the deleveraging65
Balance-sheet healthNet debt ~$4.08bn · Net Debt/Adj-EBITDA ~4.2x · EBIT coverage 0.47x / adj-cash coverage ~3.7x · current ratio 0.84 · tangible book −$7.24/shElevated leverage on a flat top line; negative tangible book (all goodwill/intangibles)26
INDUSTRY BENCHMARK — Recurring-revenue durability + FCF conversion (turnaround lens).
Recurring revenue 86.5% · Adj-EBITDA margin ~42% · FCF/revenue ~16% · organic growth ~0%.
Rating: MIXED — the annuity base and cash conversion are strong, but zero organic growth and 4.2x leverage keep the composite below average.
Benchmark score: 48/100. A high-quality annuity that is not compounding — the definition of a value name rather than a compounder.
Pricing power
55
Some list-price escalators on renewals, but flat organic ACV (~+1.6%) shows limited real pricing power against budget pressure.
Network effects
50
Web of Science citation graph has mild data-network value, but not a two-sided network. Neutral.
Switching costs
60
Databases embedded in institutional research/IP workflows are sticky — but open-access + AI-search substitution is decaying this over time (see Competitive Environment). Trimmed from a would-be 70.
Cost advantage
45
Sub-scale vs RELX/TRI, which are larger and faster-growing. No structural cost edge.
Intangible assets
58
Proprietary citation/patent/trademark datasets and brand (Web of Science, Derwent) are the real asset — but their gated value is exactly what open-access and AI threaten.

Moat average ≈ 54 — a moderate, eroding moat: sticky today, structurally challenged over 3–5 years.

Competitive Environment — the dynamic read that sets the Switching-Cost and Cost-Advantage moat sub-scores.
Competitor / threatTypeShare trajectoryMoat-erosion vector
RELX (Elsevier / LexisNexis)Direct incumbentCLVT losing relative groundLarger, better-capitalised, mid-single-digit grower; out-invests CLVT in analytics/AI.
Thomson ReutersDirect incumbent (IP/legal)CLVT losing relative groundStronger balance sheet and growth in overlapping IP/legal-data workflows.
Open-access publishingStructural substitutionLosingFree/open citation and article access erodes the value of gated databases (Web of Science).
General-purpose AI search (ChatGPT / Claude / Perplexity)Disruptive entrantLosing (early)AI discovery substitutes for paid research/discovery tools; disintermediation risk to the transactional and discovery layers.
Net effect on the moat: → Switching Costs trimmed to 60, Cost Advantage to 45; overall competitive threat level: elevated (structural, multi-year, not yet acute). Management is responding by embedding its trusted content inside AI tools (Nexus Connect) and shipping AI products (IPOne, Web of Science Research Assistant) — an attempt to turn the AI threat into a distribution channel rather than be disintermediated. Execution here is the whole long-term thesis.
ROIC & Capital Allocation. Reported ROE/ROA are negative (GAAP losses); FMP scores ROE and ROA 1/5. Capital allocation is now disciplined and deleveraging-focused: ~$143m of debt repaid in Q1 2026, buying back a slice of the 2028 notes below par, share count falling via buybacks, dividend eliminated to retain cash for paydown. The Altaris sale ($525m cash) is a sensible, accretive-to-leverage disposal of a below-average-margin segment. Management skin-in-the-game is modest; the CEO (Matti Shem Tov) is running the Value Creation Plan. Capital-allocation sub-score ~55 (competent, constrained by the debt load).
4

Pillar Detail: Valuation Attractiveness

Sector-appropriate multiples, FCF yield, reverse-DCF implied growth, embedded optionality, and the analyst-consensus cross-check.
Valuation Attractiveness — Pillar Score
Attractive on cash — but this is a value-trap set-up
70
conf 70%
Valuation Attractiveness
Confidence 70%
70/100
Read this score with the value-trap warning attached. CLVT screens genuinely cheap on cash and adjusted-earnings metrics — that is real and is why the score is Attractive, not Fair. But the cheapness is the market pricing in flat-to-declining revenue, 4.2x leverage, and a live structural (AI / open-access) threat. A low multiple plus zero organic growth plus high leverage is the textbook value trap. So Attractive valuation here resolves through the Decision Matrix to HOLD (value-trap risk), not BUY — the cheapness is necessary but not sufficient; it needs the turnaround (organic re-acceleration + deleveraging) to actually land.

THE ANCHOR — Warranted-Multiple. Discount rate r = 4.54% (UST10Y, macro 2026-07-09) + 4.5% ERP + 1.0% risk add-on (Business Quality 40–64) = 10.04%. Disciplined growth: g_near = ~2% (organic growth is ~0%; even the sector-defensive 6% cap is not earned here, so we use the company's own low-single-digit trajectory), g_term = 2%. Two-stage warranted P/E ≈ 12.7×. Actual clean multiple: at $2.23 on 2026 adjusted EPS guide ~$0.75 → ~3.0×. Actual ÷ warranted ≈ 0.23 → deep in the Attractive band on the anchor.

Multiple basis — stated explicitly (important). The 3.0× uses company-adjusted EPS, which adds back ~$736m/yr of acquired-intangible amortization. On a GAAP basis Clarivate is loss-making, so a bare “3×, cheap” would mislead. The cash-based lenses are the honest anchor for a subscription business of this kind: EV/adj-EBITDA 5.7×, FCF/EV ~7%, P/S 0.58, P/B 0.30 — all cheap; against them, clean_pe is recorded as 3.0 on the adjusted basis with the GAAP-loss caveat.
LensCLVTReferenceRead
Warranted-multiple anchor (40% wt)ratio 0.23≤ 0.80 = AttractiveAttractive
EV / adj-EBITDA5.7×Info-services peers ~12–16×Cheap
FCF yield (FCF/EV)~7%>5% attractiveAttractive
P/S · P/B0.58 · 0.30Bottom-decile of own 5-yr rangeCheap
PEG (growth-adjusted)n/m (~0% growth)Low multiple, but no growth to justify a re-rateUnfavourable
Analyst consensus target$2.50 vs $2.23 (~+12%)Within 10–20% — modest upside; targets cut ~70% ($8→$3.33→$2.50)Fair, falling
Grades consensusHOLD (0 SB / 5 B / 11 H / 4 S)Negative skewCautious
FMP ratingB- (overall 2/5)P/B 5/5 & DCF 5/5 vs ROE/ROA/D-E/P-E all 1/5Cheap asset, weak returns
Embedded Optionality / Free Upside. (1) Deleveraging — the Altaris $600m sale (~$525m cash) plus FCF-funded paydown targets 4.2x → ~3.5x → 3.0x. On a ~$1.4bn equity / $5.5bn EV, each turn of de-leverage transfers value to equity; a credible path to 3× is a real, under-priced call option on the equity (the market is pricing the debt risk, not the paydown). (2) AI re-monetisation — IPOne, Nexus Connect and the Web of Science AI suite could turn the AI threat into a growth channel; the market assigns this ~zero. Both are options, not a base case — they tilt Valuation up a few points and cushion downside, but they do not make the core cheap-on-hope. Net: the cash-generative core justifies roughly today's price; the deleveraging + AI optionality is the reason to watch, not yet a reason it is a buy.

Implied-growth read: at $2.23 on ~7% FCF/EV and 5.7× EV/EBITDA, the market is implying continued decline or stagnation — it is pricing almost no re-acceleration. Our disciplined estimate is ~0–2% organic. So the price does not embed heroic growth; it embeds pessimism. The upside case is mean-reversion of sentiment as leverage falls, not a growth surprise — which is why Quality and Timing, not Valuation, govern the signal.

5

Pillar Detail: Underlying Drivers

The dominant external force the stock is tethered to, scored 0–100. A context pillar: it does not change the base signal — it feeds amplification (tailwind ≥65 can lift BUY→STRONG BUY; headwind ≤35 can push SELL→STRONG SELL).
Primary Driver
Enterprise research/IP-information spend + AI/open-access disruption
40
Headwind (mild)

Primary driver: the health of institutional and corporate spend on research, IP and brand information — and, cutting against it, the structural shift to open-access publishing and general-purpose AI search that disintermediates gated databases. This is a B2B-information/enterprise-software driver, not a commodity, so there is no price-trend overlay; the relevant tape is the organic-growth trajectory and the competitive/technology shift.

HorizonReadAssessment
Historical (25%)Organic growth flat-to-negative 3+ yrs (2024 −1.4%, 2025 −0.1%); transactional revenue in secular decline; targets cut ~70%.Deteriorating
Current (50%)Q1’26 organic +0.6%, ACV +1.6% — stabilising but barely positive. Budget pressure at universities/pharma; open-access + AI substitution live.Weak / headwind
Forward (25%)2026 guide +0.75–+2.25% recurring organic. AI products (IPOne, Nexus Connect, WoS Research Assistant) are the swing factor — unproven. Consensus sceptical.Uncertain, tilted down

Driver score 40 — Headwind (mild). The driver is not eligible to amplify (needs ≥ 65 tailwind or ≤ 35 for STRONG). It is a mild headwind: it does not push the base signal to STRONG SELL (score is 40, not ≤ 35, and the base is HOLD which never amplifies), but it removes any tailwind support and keeps the near-term risk to the downside. The thesis-invalidation floor: organic growth turning decisively negative again (worse than −2%), or a visible acceleration of database churn to AI/open-access, would break the turnaround case and take the name from HOLD toward SELL.

6

Pillar Detail: Economic Alignment

How the current economic climate sits relative to this stock, read from the latest Macro-Economic report. Classifies the macro pressure (Tailwind / Neutral / Headwind) — the second amplification input — and frames a long entry as Trend-Following or Contrarian with a 0–100 conviction.
Stance · Pressure
Neutral · Neutral
45
conviction

Regime is Higher-for-Longer / Stagflation-lite. Mapping CLVT via its GICS classification (Professional/Information Services — closest ETF proxies XLK and XLI): XLK reads short N / med O / long O; XLI reads short O / med O / long SO. Anchored on the medium horizon that is a mild macro tailwind, but for CLVT the company-specific structural story (leverage + flat organic growth + AI/open-access threat) overwhelms any sector-macro read — so the honest economic pressure is Neutral. Because the base signal is HOLD across all horizons (and HOLD never amplifies), Economic Alignment leaves the signal unchanged regardless. Stance Neutral, conviction 45, informational only.

Source: sector-map (GICS Professional/Information Services → XLK/XLI proxy) · Macro report 2026-07-09

7

Pillar Detail: Entry/Exit Timing

The risk-reward framework, relative strength vs SPY and the sector ETF, the macro overlay, news-derived sentiment, and the catalyst cluster.
Entry/Exit Timing — Pillar Score
Weak — strong multi-timeframe downtrend near 52-week lows
22
conf 60%
Entry/Exit Timing
Confidence 60%
22/100

Risk-reward: unfavourable for a long entry. Price $2.23 sits just above the 52-week low of $1.66 and below every major moving average (daily SMA50 $2.42, SMA200 $2.87; weekly and monthly stacks all bearish). Multi-timeframe confluence is strongly bearish — monthly, weekly and daily all downtrends/support-breakdown; only the intraday frames are trying to stabilise. Daily RSI ~48 is neutral (no oversold-bounce signal), so there is no mean-reversion trigger firing. The nearest support is $1.90–$1.91, then $1.66; a stop below $1.90 is close but the trend gives no edge to buying here.

Sub-signalReadScore
MTF trend confluenceStrongly bearish (monthly/weekly/daily downtrends)15
Relative strength52-wk return ~−44%; underperforming SPY and sector badly on 1m/3m15
Position in 52-wk range~10% off the low — beaten down (value or falling knife)20
Sentiment (analyst grades)Barclays Underweight (maintained 7 Jul); Goldman Buy→Neutral (Jan), MS→Underweight (Dec), Jefferies Buy→Hold; consensus HOLD25
Catalyst layerQ2 earnings ~end-July; Altaris close pending (H2’26) — both binary-ish. Moderate clustering.45

Sentiment is bearish and the tape is broken. There is no confirmed timing path for a long — which caps the Short signal and keeps the entry ladder at Wait (see §12).

8

Economic Event Risk

High-impact macro releases in the next 14 days that could swing this stock, plus the last 7 days of surprises.

Upcoming events (next 30 days)

DateEventImpactForecastPreviousRelevant?Why
2026-07-14CPI / Core CPI (Jun) YoYHigh3.9% / 2.9%4.2% / 2.9%⚠ IndirectRate path → growth-multiple sentiment; low direct CLVT sensitivity
2026-07-30Q2 2026 earnings (est.)HighAdj-EPS ~$0.18–0.20Q1 beat✅ YesThe key CLVT-specific catalyst — organic-growth & deleveraging read; sets the next update
H2 2026Altaris LS&H sale closeMedium$525m cash✅ YesDeleveraging + margin-mix uplift; needs regulatory approval

Recent surprises (last 7 days)

DateEventActualForecastSurpriseImpact
2026-07-09Existing Home Sales (Jun)4.09M4.2M−2.6% belowNeutral for CLVT
2026-07-08FOMC MinutesOn-hold toneNeutral — rates not rising (relevant to Trigger 1)
2026-07-07Barclays reiterates UnderweightNegativeConfirms bearish Street stance

Low direct macro sensitivity — CLVT is a niche subscription-data name, not rate- or commodity-driven. The load-bearing catalyst is the Q2 print (~end-July): organic-growth and deleveraging progress. The Altaris close in H2 is the deleveraging event. Note for the gates: the FOMC-minutes on-hold tone confirms rates are NOT rising, which is why Do-Not-Buy Trigger 1 (leverage + rising rates) does not fire.

9

Multi-Timeframe Technical Analysis

Trend, RSI and breakout status across monthly / weekly / daily / hourly / 15-minute, with a confluence verdict.
TimeframeTrendDirectionRSIMACDKey S/RBreakoutVol
MonthlyDowntrendBearish ↓35−, hist turningS 1.66 / R 7.15Support breakdown0.7×
WeeklyDowntrendBearish ↓44−, flatS 1.66–2.10 / R 3.20Support breakdown1.9×
DailyStrong downtrendBearish ↓48−, hist upS 1.90 / R 2.87Support breakdown0.8×
HourlyWeakeningNeutral →49−, turningS 2.06 / R 2.58Resist. breakout0.1×
15-minRecoveringNeutral →47flatS 2.12 / R 2.32Resist. breakout0.0×
Confluence: Strongly Bearish · MTF Score 22

Every higher timeframe (monthly, weekly, daily) is in a confirmed downtrend with a support breakdown; the stock is below its SMA50 ($2.42) and SMA200 ($2.87) on the daily. Only the intraday frames are trying to stabilise off the $2.10–2.20 area — a counter-trend bounce inside a larger downtrend, not a reversal. The textbook read is 'sell the rip in a downtrend': rallies into $2.42 (SMA50) / $2.62–2.87 are more likely to stall than to break. A long entry has no timing edge here; the reachable confirmation would be a daily reclaim of the SMA50 on volume, or a tested higher-low bounce off $1.90 support.

10

Price Chart (6-Month Daily)

A 6-month daily close line with SMA50 and key support/resistance — the visual companion to the MTF table.

CLVT 6-month daily (Jan–Jul 2026). A steep breakdown from ~$3.40 to a $1.66–2.90 range; a Feb capitulation flush, an Apr–May relief bounce to ~$2.87 that failed, and a slide back toward the lows. Below SMA50 and SMA200 — a broken tape.

11

Scenario Summary

Bull / Base / Bear 12-month price paths with triggers and probability weights.

Bull $3.50 (25%)

The turnaround lands: organic growth re-accelerates toward the top of guide (~+2%), the Altaris sale closes and FCF-funded paydown drops leverage toward 3.0x, and the AI products (IPOne, Nexus Connect) show early traction that reframes the AI threat as an opportunity. Sentiment mean-reverts off distressed levels and the multiple re-rates from ~5.7x to ~7–8x EV/EBITDA. ~+57% from $2.23.

Base $2.30 (50%)

Muddle-through: organic growth stays roughly flat (0 to +1%), the divestiture closes and leverage grinds down slowly on FCF, but there is no growth re-acceleration and the structural threat keeps a lid on the multiple. The stock roughly holds its distressed valuation, trading the $1.90–$2.70 range around fair value. Cheap on cash, but no catalyst to close the gap. Roughly flat from $2.23.

Bear $1.40 (25%)

The value trap springs: organic growth turns decisively negative again (worse than −2%) as open-access and AI-search accelerate database churn (competitive trigger — RELX/TRI out-execute, AI substitution bites), FCF guidance is cut, and the leverage cushion thins as floating-rate (SOFR) interest stays high under Higher-for-Longer. A further impairment and a guide-down take the multiple lower on a shrinking EBITDA base. ~−37% to the low-$1.40s, testing/undercutting the $1.66 low.

Probability-weighted fair value ≈ $2.38 (0.25×$3.50 + 0.50×$2.30 + 0.25×$1.40) — essentially the current price. The distribution is roughly symmetric around a broken, cheap name: the upside needs the turnaround to execute; the downside is the value trap springing. With no timing edge and the distress gate live, that symmetric, catalyst-dependent payoff is a HOLD, not a buy.

12

Entry / Exit Rules

Three independent entry paths (Fundamental · Technical · Catalyst) and three exit triggers (Stop-Loss · Thesis · Profit-Target). Any one entry path is a valid entry — the more that agree, the larger the position the conviction ladder suggests. Exits are graded by severity, not count.

How to read this — the Conviction Ladder

The three entry groups are alternative paths to a buy, not a checklist. A group counts only when all its sub-conditions hold. How many groups are satisfied sets the suggested size — it does not gate whether you may enter: 1 group = Half-Size (a valid starter/scale-in), 2 = Full-Size, 3 = Over-Size (highest conviction); 0 = Wait (no path open yet). A strong overall signal can still read Wait here when the stock is well above its entry zones — that flags "good business, no entry edge right now," not a contradiction. Exits are graded by severity of what is live, not by a count: a hard stop is an Exit on its own.
Entry conviction: Wait0 of 3 groups met — no entry path open

Fundamental — not MET

Cheap on cash, but the driver is a headwind — the 'supported' condition fails.
⛔ Price $2.23 < cash-based fair value ~$2.38 (marginally — not a clear discount)
✅ No earnings within 7 days (Q2 ~end-July — clear for now)
⛔ Underlying-Driver score ≥ 50 (actual 40 — headwind)

Technical — not MET

Broken downtrend below all MAs; no reclaim, no tested higher-low bounce.
⛔ Daily close > SMA50 ($2.42) on >1.5× volume
⛔ OR a tested higher-low bounce off $1.90 support
✅ RSI 35–65 (48 — ok, but not sufficient alone)

Catalyst — not MET

No confirmed positive catalyst; the Q2 print is ahead, not resolved.
· Post-earnings move >+5% with guidance raised
⛔ Altaris close confirmed + explicit leverage step-down

Forecast: Entry ladder reads WAIT (0 of 3 paths met). The most reachable path is Technical — a daily reclaim of the SMA50 ($2.42) on volume, or a tested higher-low off $1.90 support. FORECAST: no path likely inside 2–3 weeks at the current trajectory (price below a falling SMA50 in a confirmed downtrend); a positive Q2 print (~end-July) or a confirmed Altaris close with an explicit leverage step-down is the more likely trigger — catalyst-dependent, CONFIDENCE Low-Moderate. The Fundamental path only opens if the driver stops being a headwind (organic growth re-accelerating), which the numbers do not yet support.

Exit action: Reducethe thesis is breaking — cut the position back

Stop-Loss — not LIVE

⛔ Two daily closes below $1.90 (below the swing-low shelf), then $1.66

Thesis Invalidation — LIVE

✅ Revenue growth below sector median (LIVE — organic ~0% vs peers' mid-single-digit)
✅ Primary Underlying Driver is a headwind (LIVE — driver 40)
⛔ Full-year FCF/EBITDA guidance cut (not yet — guide reaffirmed at Q1)
✅ [catastrophic] Financial-distress gate trips (Gate 1 is LIVE on the coverage arm)

Profit-Target — not LIVE

⛔ Price into $2.50 median target with RSI > 70 and no quality improvement

Forecast: For a holder: Thesis-Invalidation is LIVE (2-of-N: revenue below sector median + driver headwind, plus Gate 1) → action Reduce — trim into strength, don't add. The hard Stop-Loss ($1.90 then $1.66) is ~15–25% below and, given the downtrend, is a realistic risk on a bad Q2 print (RISK TRIGGER: Q2 earnings ~end-July). This is not a fresh-buy set-up.

Imagine you act at the current price of $2.23 · as of 12 Jul 2026

What if you bought now?

You are risking ~−37% to the bear ($1.40) and a live distress gate, to gain ~+3% to the probability-weighted fair value ($2.38) and ~+57% only if the turnaround lands (bull $3.50).

What you're risking: buying into a confirmed multi-timeframe downtrend near the 52-week low, ahead of a binary Q2 print, with Gate 1 (distress) live and organic growth flat. The hard stop ($1.90) is ~15% down; the bear case is ~−37%. No entry rule is met — the ladder says Wait.

What you're gaining: a statistically cheap, cash-generative subscription asset (EV/EBITDA 5.7×, FCF/EV ~7%), plus two free-ish call options — deleveraging (4.2x→3.0x) and AI re-monetisation — the market prices at ~zero. Net read: the risk-reward is roughly symmetric and catalyst-dependent; waiting for the Q2 print or a technical reclaim of $2.42 materially improves the deal. Acting now buys a value trap on hope, not on an edge.

What if you sold now?

You would be giving up ~+3% base upside (and the ~+57% turnaround tail) by selling at/near probability-weighted fair value — while protecting against the ~−37% bear.

What you're giving up: the deleveraging + AI optionality and any mean-reversion of distressed sentiment; you'd be selling roughly at fair value ($2.38), not below it.

What you're protecting: capital against a live value-trap bear ($1.40) and a broken tape. For a holder, Thesis-Invalidation is live (Reduce) but no hard stop is triggered yet. Net read: this is a hold/trim zone, not a forced exit — reduce into strength, keep a stop under $1.90, and let the Q2 print and Altaris close decide the next move.

13

Position Sizing Context

Illustrative portfolio math (not advice) translating conviction into an allocation given risk-per-share and volatility.

Position sizing not computed — specify your portfolio allocation and role for sizing guidance.

14

Calibration Snapshot

Machine-readable snapshot of every score, level and signal, saved alongside the HTML so the next run can compute deltas.
{
  "ticker": "CLVT",
  "company": "Clarivate Plc",
  "currency": "USD",
  "date": "2026-07-12",
  "version": "v6",
  "exchange": "NYSE",
  "exchange_ticker": "NYSE:CLVT",
  "isin": "JE00BJJN4441",
  "api_ticker": "CLVT",
  "analysis_status": "donatien-pick",
  "user_horizon": null,
  "user_allocation_pct": null,
  "portfolio_role": null,
  "lifecycle_stage": "turnaround",
  "price_at_rating": 2.23,
  "signal_short": "HOLD",
  "signal_medium": "HOLD",
  "signal_long": "HOLD",
  "primary_signal": "HOLD",
  "quality_score": 42,
  "quality_detail": {
    "industry_benchmark_name": "Recurring-revenue durability + FCF conversion (turnaround lens)",
    "industry_benchmark_value": 48,
    "industry_benchmark_score": 48,
    "moat_score": 54,
    "recurring_revenue_pct": 86.5,
    "adj_ebitda_margin_pct": 42,
    "organic_growth_pct": 0.0,
    "roic_note": "GAAP ROE/ROA negative; FMP 1/5",
    "capital_allocation": 55,
    "management_skin_in_game": 45
  },
  "valuation_score": 70,
  "valuation_detail": {
    "warranted_multiple": 12.7,
    "actual_multiple": 3.0,
    "val_multiple_basis": "company-adjusted P/E ($0.75 adj EPS); GAAP is a net loss",
    "discount_rate_r": 0.1004,
    "risk_free_10y": 0.0454,
    "g_near": 0.02,
    "g_term": 0.02,
    "warranted_ratio": 0.23,
    "val_band": "attractive",
    "ev_ebitda": 5.7,
    "fcf_yield_on_ev_pct": 7.2,
    "price_to_sales": 0.58,
    "price_to_book": 0.3,
    "net_debt_to_ebitda": 4.2,
    "net_debt_usd_bn": 4.08,
    "interest_coverage_ebit": 0.47,
    "interest_coverage_adj_ebitda": 3.7,
    "implied_growth_rate": 0.0,
    "consensus_growth_rate": 1.0,
    "historical_valuation_decile": 1
  },
  "nonop_pct_of_net_income": "n/m (GAAP net loss; earnings DEPRESSED by ~$736m/yr amortization, not inflated)",
  "clean_pe": 3.0,
  "clean_peg": null,
  "timing_score": 22,
  "timing_detail": {
    "mtf_confluence": 22,
    "risk_reward_score": 20,
    "relative_strength_vs_spy": -44,
    "relative_strength_vs_sector": -30,
    "catalyst_clustering_score": 45,
    "dynamic_macro_weight": 0.1
  },
  "driver_score": 40,
  "driver_label": "Headwind (mild)",
  "driver_name": "Enterprise research/IP-information spend + AI/open-access disruption",
  "driver_commodity_trend": "n/a (non-commodity name)",
  "economic_alignment_stance": "Neutral",
  "economic_alignment_conviction": 45,
  "economic_alignment_pressure": "Neutral",
  "economic_alignment_source": "sector-map",
  "macro_report_date": "2026-07-09",
  "competitive_share_trajectory": "losing",
  "competitive_threat_level": "elevated",
  "overall_confidence": 48,
  "fair_value_est": 2.38,
  "stop_loss": 1.9,
  "target_price": 2.5,
  "scenario_bull_target": 3.5,
  "scenario_base_target": 2.3,
  "scenario_bear_target": 1.4,
  "analyst_consensus_target": 2.5,
  "analyst_target_high": 2.5,
  "analyst_target_low": 2.5,
  "analyst_target_upside_pct": 12.1,
  "analyst_grades_consensus": "Hold",
  "analyst_bullish_pct": 25,
  "analyst_coverage_count": 20,
  "fmp_rating": "B-",
  "fmp_overall_score": 2,
  "recent_upgrades_30d": 0,
  "recent_downgrades_30d": 0,
  "entry_groups_met": 0,
  "entry_conviction": "Wait",
  "exit_groups_live": 1,
  "exit_action": "Reduce",
  "hard_gate_state": "caution",
  "gates_triggered": [
    "Gate 1 \u2014 Financial Distress (interest-coverage arm: EBIT coverage 0.47\u00d7 < 1.5\u00d7)"
  ],
  "do_not_buy_triggers": [],
  "dnb_checked_not_fired": [
    "Trigger 1 (leverage + rising rates): NOT fired \u2014 rates on-hold not rising; near-term maturity walls cleared (TLB to 2031); $600m divestiture earmarked for paydown",
    "Trigger 3 (persistent negative revisions): NOT fired \u2014 price has repriced ~\u221253% off highs, near 52wk low; second prong (price hasn't repriced) fails",
    "Trigger 5 (structural threat): NOT fired as override \u2014 real elevated AI/open-access threat but already priced as distressed; carried in Bear + Competitive"
  ],
  "next_update_date": "2026-07-30",
  "next_update_basis": "Q2 2026 earnings ~end-Jul +1d (est.); capped at +14d default",
  "finder_ticker": null,
  "finder_exchange": null
}
15

Data Sources & Methodology

Audit trail of every data source: fully available (✓), fallback (⚠), or failed (✗), plus provenance-based confidence haircuts.
Data Source Status
get_company_profile identity, sector, price, ISIN JE00BJJN4441
get_income_statement (8q) revenue decline, amortization ~$184m/q, interest ~$59–69m/q, GAAP losses
get_financial_ratios EV/EBITDA 5.7×, interest coverage 0.47× (EBIT), P/B 0.30, current ratio 0.84
get_analyst_estimates annual revenue/EPS; FMP EBITDA field distorted by amortization — used company Adjusted EBITDA instead
get_price_target_consensus / summary $2.50 consensus; all-time $8.04→$3.33→$2.50 (cut ~70%)
get_grades_consensus / get_stock_grades HOLD (0/5/11/4/0); Barclays UW 7 Jul, GS/MS/Jefferies downgrades
get_ratings_snapshot B- (2/5); P/B & DCF 5/5, ROE/ROA/D-E/P-E 1/5
get_multi_timeframe_analysis strongly bearish confluence; below SMA50/SMA200
get_stock_prices (6mo daily) chart + levels
get_stock_news / web research Altaris $600m LS&H sale (6 Jul); debt structure (TLB to 2031, floating SOFR+2.75/3.25%); dividend eliminated; Value Creation Plan; AI products
get_economic_calendar CPI 14 Jul; on-hold FOMC tone (relevant to Trigger 1)
get_earnings_calendar returned empty for CLVT; Q2 date estimated ~end-July from history (Q1 filed 29 Apr)
Macro-Economic state (2026-07-09) regime Higher-for-Longer; XLK/XLI sector map; AI-concentration tail armed (CLVT not in cohort)
Impact on scores: High data coverage. Two provenance notes: (1) the earnings date is estimated (get_earnings_calendar returned empty) — next-update basis flagged 'est.'; (2) FMP's EBITDA/estimate fields are distorted by Clarivate's large acquired-intangible amortization, so all leverage/valuation math uses company-reported Adjusted EBITDA (~$968m TTM) and adjusted EPS, with the GAAP-loss caveat stated explicitly. Confidence is moderate (48–70% per pillar) — the turnaround's execution is inherently hard to forecast.
DISCLAIMER: This is a quantitative framework for educational purposes only. It is not financial advice. Always do your own research and consult a licensed financial advisor before making investment decisions.