DNLI vs EDIT Stock Comparison
Compare DNLI and EDIT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DNLI and EDIT?
EDIT leads the current stock comparison as Editas Medicine, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Denali Therapeutics Inc. vs Editas Medicine, Inc.
EDIT leads
EDIT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors DNLI on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support EDIT, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Denali Therapeutics Inc.
Editas Medicine, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EDIT over DNLI, 42 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. EDIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while DNLI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EDIT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DNLI. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EDIT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. EDIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Denali Therapeutics Inc. and Editas Medicine, 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 DNLI and EDIT 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 Resilience70 vs 39DNLI +31
- Quality30 vs 53EDIT +23
- Momentum31 vs 41EDIT +10
- Value34 vs 34Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor EDIT. EDIT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; DNLI 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
EDIT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DNLI and EDIT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EDIT (Editas Medicine, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
DNLI (Denali Therapeutics Inc.): 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
EDITEDIT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EDITEDIT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EDITEDIT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
DNLIDNLI on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
DNLIDNLI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EDIT, analyst targets favor DNLI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DNLI | EDIT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +55.4% | +48.1% | DNLI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 1 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EDIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EDIT | 37 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 1.4% vs 42.3%; TTM ROE -55.3% vs -196.6%; gross margin -61% vs 56.9%; operating margin -150.6% vs -174.7% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -12.8% vs -10%; vs 200-day 2.4% vs 1.2% |
| Risk Resilience | DNLI | Risk Resilience 70 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | DNLI | Target upside 55.4% vs 48.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DNLI and EDIT 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EDIT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EDIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EDIT +5
- 37 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- EDIT +11
- 38 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- EDIT +4
- 47 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- EDIT +3
- 49 vs 52
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when DNLI moved ahead of EDIT.
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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.56%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.13%)
EDIT 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 -1.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.89%, 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.
- 1DNLI closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to EDIT's edge.
- 2DNLI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EDIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
Split| Metric | DNLI | EDIT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 42.3% |
| Gross margin | -61% | 56.9% |
| Operating margin | -150.6% | -174.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -55.3% | -196.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.15 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | DNLI | EDIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.3% | -14% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.3% | -6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.8% | 6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.7% | -0.4% |
| Year to date | 29.6% | 29.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39% | -5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DNLI | EDIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 26.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.8% | -10% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.4% | 1.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.9% | 89.1% |
Risk
DNLI is the more resilient| Metric | DNLI | EDIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.54 | 2.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.8 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.2 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -21.4% | -59.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -36.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.8% | 85.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -8.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DNLI or EDIT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EDIT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against DNLI's 37. The edge comes from quality and momentum. DNLI 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 DNLI or EDIT the better buy right now?
EDIT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EDIT over DNLI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DNLI leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; EDIT leads Quality by 23 points; EDIT leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DNLI or EDIT?
Analyst price targets imply +55.4% upside for DNLI and +48.1% for EDIT, so the Street currently favors DNLI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EDIT. 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, DNLI or EDIT?
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, DNLI or EDIT?
EDIT 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, DNLI or EDIT?
EDIT on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, DNLI or EDIT?
DNLI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DNLI on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 DNLI more profitable than EDIT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin -61% vs 56.9%; operating margin -150.6% vs -174.7%; ttm roe -55.3% vs -196.6%. DNLI leads on two measures and EDIT 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 EDIT's lead over DNLI getting stronger or weaker?
EDIT lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-12, when DNLI moved ahead of EDIT.
What would change the DNLI vs EDIT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DNLI closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to EDIT's edge; DNLI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EDIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 DNLI and EDIT?
DNLI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. EDIT: 2 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 DNLI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EDIT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DNLI and EDIT 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.