ACAD vs ARWR Stock Comparison
ACAD currently leads ARWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 34. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ACAD and ARWR?
ACAD leads the current stock comparison as ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. vs Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
ACAD leads
ACAD leads by 31 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 27 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ARWR on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support ACAD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACAD over ARWR, 65 versus 34 as of Oct 21, 2026. ACAD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. ACAD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ARWR. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACAD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. ACAD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 31 points over 30 sessions. ACAD leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ACAD and ARWR 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.
- Quality92 vs 32ACAD +60
- Value57 vs 34ACAD +23
- Momentum45 vs 27ACAD +18
- Risk Resilience60 vs 51ACAD +9
5 of 6 evidence groups favor ACAD. ACAD’s edge is concentrated in quality 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ACAD's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACAD and ARWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACAD (ACADIA Pharmaceuticals Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
ARWR (Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
ACADACAD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACADACAD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACADACAD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
ACADACAD on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
ACADACAD on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
ARWRARWR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACAD, analyst targets favor ARWR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACAD | ARWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +63.3% | +72.4% | ARWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +104.6% | +78.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACAD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACAD | 65 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | ACADon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 2.1%; EPS growth 8% vs -46.2%; TTM ROE 32.4% vs -60.5%; gross margin 91.1% vs 100%; operating margin 7.6% vs -33.8% — ACAD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ACAD | Value 57 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ACAD | Price vs 50-day -19.8% vs -20.9%; vs 200-day -14.6% vs -18.2% |
| Risk Resilience | ACAD | Risk Resilience 60 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | ARWR | Target upside 63.3% vs 72.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACAD and ARWR 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 31 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ACAD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ACAD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 31 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACAD +31
- 65 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- ACAD +28
- 62 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- ACAD +27
- 59 vs 32
- 90 sessions ago
- ACAD +29
- 73 vs 44
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only ACAD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ARWR
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ARWR 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.22%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.14%, 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.
- 1ARWR closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACAD's edge.
- 2ARWR's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3ACAD'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
ACAD leads on balance| Metric | ACAD | ARWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 2.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8% | -46.2% |
| Gross margin | 91.1% | 100% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | -33.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32.4% | -60.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 1.86 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ACAD | ARWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.8% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -18% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.1% | -27.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.2% | -17.1% |
| Year to date | -23.5% | -11.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.9% | 51.2% |
Technicals
ACAD has the stronger structure| Metric | ACAD | ARWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.7 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 51 | 39.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.8% | -20.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.6% | -18.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.4% | 40% |
Risk
ACAD is the more resilient| Metric | ACAD | ARWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 1.66 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.8 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -37.6% |
| Current drawdown | -33.1% | -34.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.7% | 62% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -5.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACAD or ARWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACAD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 65 against ARWR's 34. The edge comes from quality 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 ACAD or ARWR the better buy right now?
ACAD 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 ACAD over ARWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ACAD leads Quality by 60 points; ACAD leads Value by 23 points; ACAD leads Momentum by 18 points. ACAD leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ARWR simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, ACAD or ARWR?
Analyst price targets imply +63.3% upside for ACAD and +72.4% for ARWR, so the Street currently favors ARWR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACAD. 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, ACAD or ARWR?
ACAD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACAD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, ACAD or ARWR?
ACAD 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, ACAD or ARWR?
ACAD on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, ACAD or ARWR?
ACAD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACAD 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 ACAD more profitable than ARWR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 91.1% vs 100%; operating margin 7.6% vs -33.8%; ttm roe 32.4% vs -60.5%. ACAD leads on two measures and ARWR 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 ACAD's lead over ARWR getting stronger or weaker?
ACAD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 31 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 ACAD vs ARWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARWR closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACAD's edge; ARWR's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; ACAD'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 ACAD and ARWR?
ACAD: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. ARWR: 2 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 ACAD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ARWR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACAD and ARWR 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.