DECK vs RIGL Stock Comparison
Compare DECK and RIGL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DECK and RIGL?
RIGL leads the current stock comparison as Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Deckers Outdoor Corporation vs Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
RIGL leads
RIGL leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DECK on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RIGL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIGL over DECK, 75 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. RIGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while DECK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RIGL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DECK. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIGL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Deckers Outdoor Corporation and Rigel Pharmaceuticals, 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 DECK and RIGL 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.
- Momentum25 vs 69RIGL +44
- Value51 vs 63RIGL +12
- Risk Resilience66 vs 58DECK +8
- Quality93 vs 99RIGL +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RIGL. RIGL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; DECK keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
RIGL's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DECK and RIGL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RIGL (Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
DECK (Deckers Outdoor Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
RIGLRIGL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIGLRIGL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RIGLRIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
RIGLRIGL on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
DECKDECK on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
DECKDECK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RIGL, analyst targets favor DECK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DECK | RIGL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.8% | +41.8% | DECK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.6% | +53.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 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 RIGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIGL | 59 vs 75 |
| Fundamentals | RIGL | revenue growth -8.9% vs 33.8%; EPS growth -2.1% vs 97.9%; TTM ROE 41.1% vs 96.5%; gross margin 57.8% vs 91.4%; operating margin 22.7% vs 31.5% |
| Valuation | RIGL | Value 51 vs 63 |
| Technicals | RIGL | Price vs 50-day -15.3% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day -21.5% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | DECK | Risk Resilience 66 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | DECK | Target upside 48.8% vs 41.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DECK and RIGL 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 RIGL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RIGL +16
- 59 vs 75
- 7 sessions ago
- RIGL +15
- 62 vs 77
- 30 sessions ago
- RIGL +20
- 58 vs 78
- 90 sessions ago
- RIGL +12
- 66 vs 78
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when RIGL moved ahead of DECK.
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.
0 bullish / 5 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.26%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
RIGL 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 +1.74%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1DECK closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge.
- 2DECK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate RIGL's advantage entirely.
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
RIGL leads on balance| Metric | DECK | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -8.9% | 33.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.1% | 97.9% |
| Gross margin | 57.8% | 91.4% |
| Operating margin | 22.7% | 31.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.1% | 96.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.21 | 0.09 |
Performance
RIGL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DECK | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.6% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.4% | 12.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26% | 53% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.2% | 73.5% |
| Year to date | -22.2% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.8% | 15.7% |
Technicals
RIGL has the stronger structure| Metric | DECK | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.2 | 59.9 |
| ADX (14) | 39 | 37.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.3% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.5% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.8% | 45% |
Risk
DECK is the more resilient| Metric | DECK | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.02 | 0.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.69 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.11 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -34% | -50.1% |
| Current drawdown | -34% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.7% | 64.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DECK or RIGL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIGL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 75 against DECK's 59. The edge comes from momentum and value. DECK 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 DECK or RIGL the better buy right now?
RIGL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 RIGL over DECK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIGL leads Momentum by 44 points; RIGL leads Value by 12 points; DECK leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DECK or RIGL?
Analyst price targets imply +48.8% upside for DECK and +41.8% for RIGL, so the Street currently favors DECK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RIGL. 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, DECK or RIGL?
RIGL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, DECK or RIGL?
RIGL 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, DECK or RIGL?
RIGL on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, DECK or RIGL?
DECK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DECK on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 DECK more profitable than RIGL?
RIGL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.8% vs 91.4%; operating margin 22.7% vs 31.5%; ttm roe 41.1% vs 96.5%.
Is RIGL's lead over DECK getting stronger or weaker?
RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 16 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 2026-06-05, when RIGL moved ahead of DECK.
What would change the DECK vs RIGL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DECK closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge; DECK's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate RIGL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DECK and RIGL?
DECK: 0 bullish / 5 bearish. RIGL: 3 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 DECK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RIGL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DECK and RIGL 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.