A vs CLVT Stock Comparison
A currently leads CLVT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 53. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CLVT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between A and CLVT?
A leads the current stock comparison as Agilent Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Agilent Technologies, Inc. vs Clarivate Plc
A leads
A leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CLVT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support A, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agilent Technologies, Inc.
Clarivate Plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors A over CLVT, 56 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. A's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CLVT holds the stronger value profile. A also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CLVT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor A today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. A lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agilent Technologies, Inc. and Clarivate Plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare A and CLVT against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value37 vs 75CLVT +38
- Risk Resilience64 vs 31A +33
- Quality67 vs 46A +21
- Momentum61 vs 49A +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor A. A’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CLVT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
A's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — A and CLVT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
A (Agilent Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CLVT (Clarivate Plc): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 64% against 27.4%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
AA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLVTCLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
AA on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
AA on Risk Resilience, by 33 points.
Analyst upside
CLVTCLVT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors A, analyst targets favor CLVT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | A | CLVT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5% | +27.8% | CLVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.8% | +22.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor A. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Aon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs 0.3%; EPS growth 6.7% vs -5.7%; TTM ROE 20.5% vs -7%; gross margin 53.7% vs 66.8%; operating margin 22.2% vs -3.5% — A takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLVT | Value 37 vs 75 |
| Technicals | A | Price vs 50-day 11.2% vs -4.7%; vs 200-day 28.3% vs -22.2% |
| Risk Resilience | A | Risk Resilience 64 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | CLVT | Target upside -5% vs 27.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of A and CLVT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on A.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20A lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- A +3
- 56 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- A +6
- 57 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- A +14
- 61 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- A +14
- 61 vs 47
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when A moved ahead of CLVT.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only A
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CLVT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.87%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
A leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.74%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.12%, AIQ +1 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to A's edge.
- 2CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3A's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate A's advantage entirely.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
A leads on balance| Metric | A | CLVT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.7% | -5.7% |
| Gross margin | 53.7% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 22.2% | -3.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.5% | -7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.54 | 0.94 |
Performance
A leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | A | CLVT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | 11.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 29.6% | -10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 41.7% | -34.8% |
| Year to date | 27.1% | -46.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.6% | -49.9% |
Technicals
A has the stronger structure| Metric | A | CLVT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.2 | 58.7 |
| ADX (14) | 37.1 | 21.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.2% | -4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 28.3% | -22.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.4% | 64% |
Risk
A is the more resilient| Metric | A | CLVT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.82 | 0.84 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.65 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.24 | -0.99 |
| Max drawdown | -29.9% | -61.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1.4% | -52.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.4% | 76.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -6.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, A or CLVT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, A is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against CLVT's 53. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CLVT is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is A or CLVT the better buy right now?
A carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor A over CLVT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CLVT leads Value by 38 points; A leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; A leads Quality by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, A or CLVT?
Analyst price targets imply -5% upside for A and +27.8% for CLVT, so the Street currently favors CLVT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors A. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, A or CLVT?
CLVT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, A or CLVT?
A on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, A or CLVT?
A on the Momentum factor, by 12 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, A or CLVT?
A is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. A on Risk Resilience, by 33 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is A more profitable than CLVT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.7% vs 66.8%; operating margin 22.2% vs -3.5%; ttm roe 20.5% vs -7%. A leads on two measures and CLVT on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is A's lead over CLVT getting stronger or weaker?
A lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when A moved ahead of CLVT.
What would change the A vs CLVT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLVT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to A's edge; CLVT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; a's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate A's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about A and CLVT?
A: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CLVT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on A is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CLVT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare A and CLVT with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.