A vs TXG Stock Comparison
Agilent Technologies, Inc. vs 10x Genomics, Inc.
A leads
A leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support A, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Agilent Technologies, Inc.
10x Genomics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors A over TXG, 56 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. A's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while TXG holds the stronger momentum profile. A also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor A today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. A lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Agilent Technologies, Inc. and 10x Genomics, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare A and TXG 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.
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 38A +25
- Quality30%67 vs 59A +8
- Momentum25%61 vs 67TXG +6
- Value30%37 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor A. A’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; TXG keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
A's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — A and TXG 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.
TXG (10x Genomics, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 72.5% against 28.1%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
AA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TXGTXG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
AA on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
AA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | A | TXG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.1% | -30.2% | A has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.3% | +98.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | A | 56 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | Aon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs 0.1%; EPS growth 6.7% vs -40%; TTM ROE 20.5% vs -9.3%; gross margin 53.7% vs 70%; operating margin 22.2% vs -14.3% — A takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 37 vs 34 |
| Technicals | TXG | Price vs 50-day 6% vs 23.1%; vs 200-day 14.6% vs 116.5% |
| Risk Resilience | A | Risk Resilience 63 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | A | Target upside 9.1% vs -30.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of A and TXG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4A lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- A +6
- 56 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- A +8
- 58 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- A +7
- 61 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- A +2
- 56 vs 54
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 24 when A moved ahead of TXG.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.16%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (75.80%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.59%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.9%, 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.
- 1TXG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to A's edge.
- 2TXG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3A's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
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 | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.7% | -40% |
| Gross margin | 53.7% | 70% |
| Operating margin | 22.2% | -14.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.5% | -9.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.54 | 0.1 |
Performance
TXG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | A | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 20.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.4% | 101.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 30% | 201.1% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | 284.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.5% | 369.6% |
Technicals
TXG has the stronger structure| Metric | A | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 59.1 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 43.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | 23.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.6% | 116.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.1% | 72.5% |
Risk
A is the more resilient| Metric | A | TXG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | 2.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 2.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 5.15 |
| Max drawdown | -29.9% | -28% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 72.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, A or TXG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, A is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against TXG's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. TXG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 TXG the better buy right now?
A carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor A over TXG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. A leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; A leads Quality by 8 points; TXG leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, A or TXG?
Analyst price targets imply +9.1% upside for A and -30.2% for TXG, so the Street currently favors A. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, A or TXG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 TXG?
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 TXG?
TXG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 TXG?
A is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. A on Risk Resilience, by 25 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is A more profitable than TXG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.7% vs 70%; operating margin 22.2% vs -14.3%; ttm roe 20.5% vs -9.3%. A leads on two measures and TXG 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 TXG getting stronger or weaker?
A lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-24, when A moved ahead of TXG.
What would change the A vs TXG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to A's edge; TXG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; a's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about A and TXG?
A: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TXG: 3 bullish / 1 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 TXG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare A and TXG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.