CLVT vs EXAS Stock Comparison
CLVT currently leads EXAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 46. The clearest difference is value, while EXAS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CLVT and EXAS?
CLVT leads the current stock comparison as Clarivate Plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Clarivate Plc vs Exact Sciences Corporation
CLVT leads
CLVT leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CLVT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Clarivate Plc
Exact Sciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CLVT over EXAS, 53 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. CLVT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while EXAS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CLVT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLVT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CLVT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Clarivate Plc and Exact Sciences Corporation 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 CLVT and EXAS 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.
- Value75 vs 37CLVT +38
- Risk Resilience31 vs 67EXAS +36
- Quality46 vs 44Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CLVT. CLVT’s edge is concentrated in value; EXAS keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
CLVT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLVT and EXAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CLVT (Clarivate Plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
EXAS (Exact Sciences Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
CLVTCLVT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EXASEXAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLVTCLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
CLVTCLVT 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 | CLVT | EXAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.8% | +0.1% | CLVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLVT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CLVT | 53 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -5.7% vs -3.5%; TTM ROE -7% vs -8.5%; gross margin 66.8% vs 69.7%; operating margin -3.5% vs -6.2% |
| Valuation | CLVT | Value 75 vs 37 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day -22.2% vs 41.3% |
| Risk Resilience | EXAS | Risk Resilience 31 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | CLVT | Target upside 27.8% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLVT and EXAS 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 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 CLVT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CLVT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CLVT +7
- 53 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- CLVT +5
- 51 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- CLVT +1
- 47 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- CLVT +1
- 47 vs 46
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CLVT
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.87%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
CLVT 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.12%, 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.
- 1EXAS closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLVT's edge.
- 2EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CLVT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | CLVT | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | -3.5% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | -3.5% | -6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 1.05 |
Performance
EXAS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLVT | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.3% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.6% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -34.8% | 100.3% |
| Year to date | -46.7% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.9% | 133.5% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | CLVT | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.7 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 42.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.2% | 41.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 64% | 4.2% |
Risk
EXAS is the more resilient| Metric | CLVT | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.84 | -0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 3.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.99 | 12.67 |
| Max drawdown | -61.4% | -5% |
| Current drawdown | -52.7% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 76.4% | 43.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLVT or EXAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CLVT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 against EXAS's 46. The edge comes from value. EXAS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 CLVT or EXAS the better buy right now?
CLVT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CLVT over EXAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CLVT leads Value by 38 points; EXAS leads Risk Resilience by 36 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLVT or EXAS?
Analyst price targets imply +27.8% upside for CLVT and +0.1% for EXAS, so the Street currently favors CLVT. 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, CLVT or EXAS?
CLVT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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, CLVT or EXAS?
EXAS 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, CLVT or EXAS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CLVT or EXAS?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 CLVT more profitable than EXAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66.8% vs 69.7%; operating margin -3.5% vs -6.2%; ttm roe -7% vs -8.5%. CLVT leads on two measures and EXAS 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 CLVT's lead over EXAS getting stronger or weaker?
CLVT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 7 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 CLVT vs EXAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXAS closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLVT's edge; EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; CLVT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 CLVT and EXAS?
CLVT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EXAS: No active signals. 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 CLVT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLVT and EXAS 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.