ARWR vs XNCR Stock Comparison
Compare ARWR and XNCR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARWR and XNCR?
XNCR leads the current stock comparison as Xencor, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs Xencor, Inc.
XNCR leads
XNCR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support XNCR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Xencor, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XNCR over ARWR, 45 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. XNCR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. XNCR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XNCR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XNCR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Xencor, 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 XNCR 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.
- Quality32 vs 48XNCR +16
- Momentum35 vs 50XNCR +15
- Risk Resilience57 vs 55Even
- Value34 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor XNCR. XNCR’s edge is concentrated in quality 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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
XNCR's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARWR and XNCR 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
XNCRXNCR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XNCRXNCR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
XNCRXNCR on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
ARWRARWR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
XNCRXNCR 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 | XNCR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.4% | +40.3% | XNCR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +77.6% | +75.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XNCR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XNCR | 37 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | XNCRon balance | revenue growth 2.1% vs 10.3%; EPS growth -46.2% vs 83%; TTM ROE -60.5% vs -28.7%; gross margin 100% vs 43.3%; operating margin -33.8% vs -205.8% — XNCR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | XNCR | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs 12.9%; vs 200-day 15.3% vs 58.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 57 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | XNCR | Target upside 24.4% vs 40.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARWR and XNCR 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 XNCR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XNCR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XNCR +8
- 37 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- XNCR +8
- 42 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- XNCR +8
- 45 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- XNCR +5
- 48 vs 53
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on May 29 when ARWR moved ahead of XNCR.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (41.52%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
XNCR 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.62%, 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.
- 1ARWR closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to XNCR's edge.
- 2ARWR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XNCR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
XNCR leads on balance| Metric | ARWR | XNCR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 10.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -46.2% | 83% |
| Gross margin | 100% | 43.3% |
| Operating margin | -33.8% | -205.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -60.5% | -28.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.86 | 0.13 |
Performance
XNCR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ARWR | XNCR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | -9.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.1% | 4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17% | 105.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 42.4% | 101.5% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 58.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 204.6% | 188.5% |
Technicals
XNCR has the stronger structure| Metric | ARWR | XNCR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.9 | 38.5 |
| ADX (14) | 14.9 | 52 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | 12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.3% | 58.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.2% | 71.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARWR | XNCR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.55 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.03 | 1.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.06 | 3.32 |
| Max drawdown | -24.6% | -42.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -17.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 61% | 67.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARWR or XNCR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XNCR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against ARWR's 37. 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 ARWR or XNCR the better buy right now?
XNCR 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XNCR over ARWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XNCR leads Quality by 16 points; XNCR leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARWR or XNCR?
Analyst price targets imply +24.4% upside for ARWR and +40.3% for XNCR, so the Street currently favors XNCR. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ARWR or XNCR?
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 XNCR?
XNCR 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 XNCR?
XNCR on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 XNCR?
ARWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARWR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 XNCR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 100% vs 43.3%; operating margin -33.8% vs -205.8%; ttm roe -60.5% vs -28.7%. ARWR leads on two measures and XNCR 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 XNCR's lead over ARWR getting stronger or weaker?
XNCR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-29, when ARWR moved ahead of XNCR.
What would change the ARWR vs XNCR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARWR closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to XNCR's edge; ARWR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; XNCR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 XNCR?
ARWR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XNCR: 3 bullish / 1 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 XNCR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARWR and XNCR 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.