EFX vs EXAS Stock Comparison
Equifax Inc. vs Exact Sciences Corporation
EXAS leads
EXAS leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from EFX. Wall Street currently favors EFX on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EXAS, and the lead recently changed hands.
Equifax Inc.
Exact Sciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXAS over EFX, 46 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. EXAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while EFX holds the stronger value profile. EXAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EFX. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXAS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. EXAS lead: Reversed — EFX led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EXAS now leads by 2.
Compare Equifax Inc. and Exact Sciences Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare EFX 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.
- Risk Resilience15%37 vs 67EXAS +30
- Value30%53 vs 37EFX +16
- Quality30%46 vs 44Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EXAS. EXAS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; EFX keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -30
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.12%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: EXAS moved ahead of EFX in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EFX and EXAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXAS (Exact Sciences Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
EFX (Equifax Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% against 4.2%.
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
EXASEXAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EFXEFX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EFXEFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
EFXEFX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EXAS, analyst targets favor EFX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EFX | EXAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.2% | +0.1% | EFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | EFXon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 8.4% vs -3.5%; TTM ROE 15% vs -8.5%; gross margin 44.4% vs 69.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs -6.2% — EFX takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EFX | Value 53 vs 37 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day -5.7% vs 41.3% |
| Risk Resilience | EXAS | Risk Resilience 37 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | EFX | Target upside 20.2% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EFX 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 EXAS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4EXAS lead: Reversed — EFX led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EXAS now leads by 2.
- Today
- EXAS +2
- 44 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- EFX +11
- 57 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- EFX +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 46 vs 46
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when EXAS moved ahead of EFX.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.40%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.12%)
No active signals
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 down over the latest session (price -6.37%, AIQ -9 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.
- 1EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXAS's edge.
- 2EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EXAS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
EFX leads on balance| Metric | EFX | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.4% | -3.5% |
| Gross margin | 44.4% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.9% | -6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.25 | 1.05 |
Performance
EXAS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EFX | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.9% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.8% | 100.3% |
| Year to date | -18.4% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.4% | 133.5% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | EFX | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.2 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 42.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.7% | 41.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 4.2% |
Risk
EXAS is the more resilient| Metric | EFX | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | -0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.69 | 3.01 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.87 | 6.01 |
| Max drawdown | -42.1% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -32.5% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 44.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EFX or EXAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXAS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 46 against EFX's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience. EFX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 EFX or EXAS the better buy right now?
EXAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EXAS over EFX?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EXAS leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; EFX leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EFX or EXAS?
Analyst price targets imply +20.2% upside for EFX and +0.1% for EXAS, so the Street currently favors EFX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EXAS. 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, EFX or EXAS?
EFX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, EFX or EXAS?
EFX 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, EFX or EXAS?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, EFX or EXAS?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS on Risk Resilience, by 30 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is EFX more profitable than EXAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.4% vs 69.7%; operating margin 17.9% vs -6.2%; ttm roe 15% vs -8.5%. EFX 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 EXAS's lead over EFX getting stronger or weaker?
EXAS lead: Reversed — EFX led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EXAS now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when EXAS moved ahead of EFX.
What would change the EFX vs EXAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXAS's edge; EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EXAS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about EFX and EXAS?
EFX: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. EXAS: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on EFX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EFX and EXAS with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.