ARWR vs DNLI Stock Comparison
Compare ARWR and DNLI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARWR and DNLI?
ARWR and DNLI are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs Denali Therapeutics Inc.
ARWR and DNLI are effectively level
ARWR and DNLI are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Denali Therapeutics Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate ARWR and DNLI as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Denali 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 DNLI 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 70DNLI +13
- Momentum35 vs 31ARWR +4
- Quality32 vs 30Even
- Value34 vs 34Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
DNLI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARWR and DNLI both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
DNLIDNLI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ARWRARWR on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
DNLIDNLI on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
DNLIDNLI 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 | ARWR | DNLI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.4% | +55.4% | DNLI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +77.6% | +54.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 37 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | ARWRon balance | revenue growth 2.1% vs 0%; EPS growth -46.2% vs 1.4%; TTM ROE -60.5% vs -55.3%; gross margin 100% vs -61%; operating margin -33.8% vs -150.6% — 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 -12.8%; vs 200-day 15.3% vs 2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | DNLI | Risk Resilience 57 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | DNLI | Target upside 24.4% vs 55.4% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DNLI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 37 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- ARWR +4
- 42 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- DNLI +2
- 45 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- DNLI +1
- 48 vs 49
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when DNLI moved ahead of ARWR.
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 (15.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 -1.45%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | DNLI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -46.2% | 1.4% |
| Gross margin | 100% | -61% |
| Operating margin | -33.8% | -150.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -60.5% | -55.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.86 | 0.03 |
Performance
ARWR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ARWR | DNLI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.1% | -15.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.4% | -0.7% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 29.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 204.6% | 39% |
Technicals
ARWR has the stronger structure| Metric | ARWR | DNLI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.9 | 24.4 |
| ADX (14) | 14.9 | 25.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -12.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.3% | 2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.2% | 33.9% |
Risk
DNLI is the more resilient| Metric | ARWR | DNLI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.55 | 1.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.03 | 0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.06 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -21.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 61% | 56.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, ARWR or DNLI?
Analyst price targets imply +24.4% upside for ARWR and +55.4% for DNLI, so the Street currently favors DNLI. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ARWR or DNLI?
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 DNLI?
DNLI 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 DNLI?
ARWR on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 DNLI?
DNLI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DNLI on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 DNLI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 100% vs -61%; operating margin -33.8% vs -150.6%; ttm roe -60.5% vs -55.3%. ARWR leads on two measures and DNLI 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.
What do the current signals say about ARWR and DNLI?
ARWR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DNLI: 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 DNLI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARWR and DNLI 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.