AAPL vs VERA Stock Comparison
Compare AAPL and VERA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AAPL and VERA?
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 Vera Therapeutics, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors VERA on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 5 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Apple Inc.
Vera Therapeutics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over VERA, 64 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VERA. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Vera Therapeutics, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AAPL and VERA 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 27AAPL +53
- Momentum77 vs 49AAPL +28
- Risk Resilience63 vs 56AAPL +7
3 of 5 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-11, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-10.
Largest factor move: Momentum -29
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
AAPL's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and VERA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
VERA (Vera Therapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 59.6% against 20.6%.
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
VERAVERA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
VERAVERA 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 VERA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | VERA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.2% | +147.5% | VERA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | +94.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 8 | 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 5 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 | 64 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 0%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs -84.1% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 5% vs -0.9%; vs 200-day 10.9% vs -15% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 63 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | VERA | Target upside -1.2% vs 147.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and VERA 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 wide at 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +23
- 64 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +15
- 64 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +19
- 57 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +12
- 64 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 30 when AAPL moved ahead of VERA.
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 / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.44%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
VERA is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.75%, AIQ +7 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.32%, 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.
- 1VERA closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2VERA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AAPL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | VERA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 10.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -84.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.18 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | VERA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.5% | 6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.9% | -20.1% |
| Year to date | 16% | -33.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | 37.9% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | VERA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.4 | 58.5 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | -0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.9% | -15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 59.6% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | VERA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.29 | 0.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.76 | 1.43 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -48.1% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -39.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 59.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or VERA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 64 against VERA's 41. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 VERA the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 5 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 VERA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 53 points; AAPL leads Momentum by 28 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or VERA?
Analyst price targets imply -1.2% upside for AAPL and +147.5% for VERA, so the Street currently favors VERA. 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 VERA?
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 VERA?
VERA 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, AAPL or VERA?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 28 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 VERA?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 VERA?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 0%; operating margin 33.2% vs 0%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -84.1%.
Is AAPL's lead over VERA getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-30, when AAPL moved ahead of VERA.
What would change the AAPL vs VERA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VERA closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; VERA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AAPL's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 VERA?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. VERA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VERA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and VERA 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.