AAPL vs EXAS Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads EXAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AAPL and EXAS?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Exact Sciences Corporation
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors EXAS on target upside.
Competitive: 1 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Exact Sciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over EXAS, 63 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EXAS. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Exact Sciences Corporation 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 AAPL and EXAS 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.
- Quality80 vs 44AAPL +36
- Value38 vs 37Even
- Risk Resilience68 vs 67Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and EXAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
EXAS (Exact Sciences Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EXASEXAS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor EXAS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | EXAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.3% | +0.1% | EXAS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 63 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 3.2%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs -8.5%; gross margin 48.7% vs 69.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs -6.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 38 vs 37 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs 41.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 68 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | EXAS | Target upside -3.3% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and EXAS 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +17
- 63 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +15
- 61 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +17
- 63 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +5
- 51 vs 46
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 AAPL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.51%)
- 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
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
AAPL 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1EXAS closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
Split| Metric | AAPL | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | -3.5% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | -6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 1.05 |
Performance
EXAS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.6% | 100.3% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.2% | 133.5% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 42.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | 41.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 4.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AAPL | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | -0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 3.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | 12.67 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -5% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.4% | 43.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or EXAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 against EXAS's 46. The edge comes from quality. 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 AAPL or EXAS the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 1 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 AAPL over EXAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 36 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or EXAS?
Analyst price targets imply -3.3% upside for AAPL and +0.1% for EXAS, so the Street currently favors EXAS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or EXAS?
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, AAPL or EXAS?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, AAPL or EXAS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AAPL or EXAS?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than EXAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 69.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs -6.2%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -8.5%. AAPL leads on two measures and EXAS 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 AAPL's lead over EXAS getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AAPL vs EXAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXAS closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and EXAS?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. EXAS: No active signals. 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and EXAS 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.