ADPT vs API Stock Comparison
Compare ADPT and API across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ADPT and API?
API leads the current stock comparison as Agora, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation vs Agora, Inc.
API leads
API leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors ADPT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support API, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation
Agora, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors API over ADPT, 56 versus 39 as of Sep 6, 2026. API's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. API also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ADPT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor API today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. API lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Adaptive Biotechnologies Corporation and Agora, 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 ADPT and API 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.
- Quality30%30 vs 58API +28
- Risk Resilience15%35 vs 58API +23
- Value30%34 vs 53API +19
- Momentum25%57 vs 55Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor API. API’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
API's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADPT and API both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
API (Agora, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ADPT (Adaptive Biotechnologies 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
APIAPI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
APIAPI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APIAPI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
APIAPI on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
ADPTADPT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors API, analyst targets favor ADPT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ADPT | API | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.6% | -38% | ADPT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor API. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | API | 39 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | APIon balance | EPS growth -92.3% vs 103.1%; TTM ROE -32.6% vs 2%; gross margin 75.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin -12.2% vs -4.3% — API takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | API | Value 34 vs 53 |
| Technicals | ADPT | Price vs 50-day 3.5% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 37.3% vs 3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | API | Risk Resilience 35 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | ADPT | Target upside -1.6% vs -38% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADPT and API 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)
- 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 API.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5API lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- API +17
- 39 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- API +15
- 38 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- API +19
- 41 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- API +7
- 42 vs 49
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (32.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.96%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.77%)
API 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 -1.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.68%, 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.
- 1ADPT closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to API's edge.
- 2ADPT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3API's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
API leads on balance| Metric | ADPT | API |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -92.3% | 103.1% |
| Gross margin | 75.4% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | -12.2% | -4.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.6% | 2% |
| Debt to equity | 2.87 | 0.18 |
Performance
ADPT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ADPT | API |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | 3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 43.7% | -11.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 63.4% | -2.3% |
| Year to date | 49.5% | 4.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 88.9% | 24.3% |
Technicals
ADPT has the stronger structure| Metric | ADPT | API |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46 | 42.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 14.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.5% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 37.3% | 3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.6% | 49.8% |
Risk
API is the more resilient| Metric | ADPT | API |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.84 | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.9 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -39.4% | -29% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -19.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.3% | 51.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADPT or API?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, API is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 56 against ADPT's 39. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 ADPT or API the better buy right now?
API carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 API over ADPT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. API leads Quality by 28 points; API leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; API leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADPT or API?
Analyst price targets imply -1.6% upside for ADPT and -38% for API, so the Street currently favors ADPT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors API. 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, ADPT or API?
API is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. API on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, ADPT or API?
API 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, ADPT or API?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ADPT or API?
API is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. API on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 ADPT more profitable than API?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin -12.2% vs -4.3%; ttm roe -32.6% vs 2%. ADPT leads on one measure and API on two measures, 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 API's lead over ADPT getting stronger or weaker?
API lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ADPT vs API verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ADPT closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to API's edge; ADPT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; API's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ADPT and API?
ADPT: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. API: 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 ADPT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On API it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADPT and API 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.