ARWR vs BEAM Stock Comparison
Compare ARWR and BEAM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARWR and BEAM?
ARWR leads the current stock comparison as Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs Beam Therapeutics Inc.
ARWR leads
ARWR leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors BEAM on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ARWR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Beam Therapeutics Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARWR over BEAM, 37 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. ARWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. ARWR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BEAM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARWR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ARWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Beam 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 ARWR and BEAM 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 Resilience57 vs 36ARWR +21
- Momentum35 vs 28ARWR +7
- Quality32 vs 35Even
- Value34 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ARWR. ARWR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ARWR's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARWR and BEAM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARWR (Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
BEAM (Beam Therapeutics Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 73% against 31.2%.
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
ARWRARWR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ARWRARWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ARWRARWR on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
ARWRARWR on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
BEAMBEAM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ARWR, analyst targets favor BEAM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARWR | BEAM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.4% | +148% | BEAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +77.6% | +68.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 2 | 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 ARWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ARWR | 37 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | ARWRon balance | revenue growth 2.1% vs -98.5%; EPS growth -46.2% vs -29.7%; TTM ROE -60.5% vs -7.7%; gross margin 100% vs 18.9%; operating margin -33.8% vs -242.3% — ARWR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ARWR | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs -16.7%; vs 200-day 15.3% vs -11.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ARWR | Risk Resilience 57 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | BEAM | Target upside 24.4% vs 148% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARWR and BEAM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ARWR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ARWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARWR +4
- 37 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- BEAM +2
- 42 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- ARWR +4
- 45 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- ARWR +2
- 48 vs 46
The lead changed hands 13 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when ARWR moved ahead of BEAM.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.27%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.07%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.72%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
ARWR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.11%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.56%, 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.
- 1BEAM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARWR's edge.
- 2BEAM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ARWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
ARWR leads on balance| Metric | ARWR | BEAM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.1% | -98.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -46.2% | -29.7% |
| Gross margin | 100% | 18.9% |
| Operating margin | -33.8% | -242.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -60.5% | -7.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.86 | 0.23 |
Performance
ARWR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ARWR | BEAM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | -16.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.1% | -8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | -17.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.4% | -6.6% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | -12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 204.6% | 22.2% |
Technicals
ARWR has the stronger structure| Metric | ARWR | BEAM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.9 | 35.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.9 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -16.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.3% | -11.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.2% | 73% |
Risk
ARWR is the more resilient| Metric | ARWR | BEAM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.55 | 2.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.03 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.06 | 1.07 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -38.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 61% | 75.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -6.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARWR or BEAM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARWR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against BEAM's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 ARWR or BEAM the better buy right now?
ARWR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ARWR over BEAM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ARWR leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; ARWR leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARWR or BEAM?
Analyst price targets imply +24.4% upside for ARWR and +148% for BEAM, so the Street currently favors BEAM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ARWR. 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, ARWR or BEAM?
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, ARWR or BEAM?
ARWR 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, ARWR or BEAM?
ARWR on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, ARWR or BEAM?
ARWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARWR on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 ARWR more profitable than BEAM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 100% vs 18.9%; operating margin -33.8% vs -242.3%; ttm roe -60.5% vs -7.7%. ARWR leads on two measures and BEAM 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 ARWR's lead over BEAM getting stronger or weaker?
ARWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 13 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when ARWR moved ahead of BEAM.
What would change the ARWR vs BEAM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BEAM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARWR's edge; BEAM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ARWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 ARWR and BEAM?
ARWR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BEAM: 2 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 ARWR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BEAM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARWR and BEAM 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.