AAPL vs MEDP Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads MEDP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 63 vs 57. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between AAPL and MEDP?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Medpace Holdings, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over MEDP, 63 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. AAPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Medpace Holdings, Inc. 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 MEDP 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 Resilience68 vs 59AAPL +9
- Value38 vs 30AAPL +8
- Momentum70 vs 62AAPL +8
- Quality80 vs 79Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
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 MEDP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
MEDP (Medpace Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.9% against 16.4%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
AAPLAAPL 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 | AAPL | MEDP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.3% | -13% | AAPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | +52.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 57 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 0.1%; EPS growth 1% vs -0.9%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 110.1%; gross margin 48.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 21% — AAPL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AAPL | Value 38 vs 30 |
| Technicals | MEDP | Price vs 50-day 5.2% vs 9.1%; vs 200-day 15.8% vs 18.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | AAPL | Target upside -3.3% vs -13% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and MEDP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +6
- 63 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +3
- 61 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +1
- 63 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- MEDP +5
- 51 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when AAPL moved ahead of MEDP.
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
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.5%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only MEDP
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +6.43%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1MEDP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2MEDP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | -0.9% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 28.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 21% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 110.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.28 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.2% | 17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.6% | 20.9% |
| Year to date | 24.9% | 10.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.2% | 19.4% |
Technicals
MEDP has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.9 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.2% | 9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.8% | 18.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 27.9% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.6 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -36.6% |
| Current drawdown | -1.1% | -1.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.4% | 44.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or MEDP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 63 against MEDP's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 MEDP the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over MEDP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; AAPL leads Value by 8 points; AAPL leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or MEDP?
Analyst price targets imply -3.3% upside for AAPL and -13% for MEDP, so the Street currently favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or MEDP?
AAPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AAPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, AAPL or MEDP?
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 MEDP?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, AAPL or MEDP?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AAPL more profitable than MEDP?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 21%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 110.1%.
Is AAPL's lead over MEDP getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 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 2026-08-26, when AAPL moved ahead of MEDP.
What would change the AAPL vs MEDP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MEDP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; MEDP's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; 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 MEDP?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MEDP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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). On MEDP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and MEDP 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.