EDIT vs ICLR Stock Comparison
Compare EDIT and ICLR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EDIT and ICLR?
ICLR leads the current stock comparison as ICON Public Limited Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Editas Medicine, Inc. vs ICON Public Limited Company
ICLR leads
ICLR leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors EDIT on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ICLR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Editas Medicine, Inc.
ICON Public Limited Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ICLR over EDIT, 48 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. ICLR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while EDIT holds the stronger quality profile. ICLR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EDIT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ICLR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Editas Medicine, Inc. and ICON Public Limited Company 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 EDIT and ICLR 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.
- Value34 vs 67ICLR +33
- Quality53 vs 38EDIT +15
- Risk Resilience39 vs 49ICLR +10
- Momentum41 vs 36EDIT +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ICLR. ICLR’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; EDIT keeps a meaningful quality 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 +3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
ICLR's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EDIT and ICLR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ICLR (ICON Public Limited Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
EDIT (Editas Medicine, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 89.1% against 35.7%.
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
ICLRICLR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EDITEDIT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ICLRICLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
EDITEDIT on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
ICLRICLR on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
EDITEDIT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ICLR, analyst targets favor EDIT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EDIT | ICLR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.1% | -4.2% | EDIT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +62.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | 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 ICLR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ICLR | 42 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | EDITon balance | revenue growth 3.2% vs 1.4%; EPS growth 42.3% vs -31.4%; TTM ROE -196.6% vs 3.5%; gross margin 56.9% vs 21.8%; operating margin -174.7% vs 10.1% — EDIT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ICLR | Value 34 vs 67 |
| Technicals | ICLR | Price vs 50-day -10% vs 1.2%; vs 200-day 1.2% vs 12.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ICLR | Risk Resilience 39 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | EDIT | Target upside 48.1% vs -4.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EDIT and ICLR 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 6 points.
- 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 ICLR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ICLR +6
- 42 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ICLR +4
- 51 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- ICLR +6
- 52 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when ICLR 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 / 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%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.50%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.03%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ICLR 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 +1.89%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.18%, 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.
- 1EDIT closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICLR's edge.
- 2EDIT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ICLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
EDIT leads on balance| Metric | EDIT | ICLR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.3% | -31.4% |
| Gross margin | 56.9% | 21.8% |
| Operating margin | -174.7% | 10.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -196.6% | 3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.37 |
Performance
ICLR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EDIT | ICLR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.9% | 14.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.4% | 57.2% |
| Year to date | 29.3% | -9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5% | -6.8% |
Technicals
ICLR has the stronger structure| Metric | EDIT | ICLR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.4 | 12.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10% | 1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.2% | 12.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 89.1% | 35.7% |
Risk
ICLR is the more resilient| Metric | EDIT | ICLR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 0.31 |
| Max drawdown | -59.9% | -60.5% |
| Current drawdown | -36.1% | -18.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 85.4% | 67.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.4% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EDIT or ICLR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ICLR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against EDIT's 42. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. EDIT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 EDIT or ICLR the better buy right now?
ICLR 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 ICLR over EDIT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ICLR leads Value by 33 points; EDIT leads Quality by 15 points; ICLR leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EDIT or ICLR?
Analyst price targets imply +48.1% upside for EDIT and -4.2% for ICLR, so the Street currently favors EDIT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ICLR. 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, EDIT or ICLR?
ICLR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ICLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, EDIT or ICLR?
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, EDIT or ICLR?
EDIT on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, EDIT or ICLR?
ICLR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICLR on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 EDIT more profitable than ICLR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.9% vs 21.8%; operating margin -174.7% vs 10.1%; ttm roe -196.6% vs 3.5%. EDIT leads on one measure and ICLR on two measures, 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 ICLR's lead over EDIT getting stronger or weaker?
ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when ICLR moved ahead of EDIT.
What would change the EDIT vs ICLR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EDIT closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICLR's edge; EDIT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ICLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 EDIT and ICLR?
EDIT: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ICLR: 1 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 EDIT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ICLR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EDIT and ICLR 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.