EXAS vs MEDP Stock Comparison
MEDP currently leads EXAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while EXAS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between EXAS and MEDP?
MEDP leads the current stock comparison as Medpace Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Exact Sciences Corporation vs Medpace Holdings, Inc.
MEDP leads
MEDP leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors EXAS on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MEDP, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Exact Sciences Corporation
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MEDP over EXAS, 57 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. MEDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while EXAS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MEDP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EXAS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MEDP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Exact Sciences Corporation and Medpace Holdings, Inc. 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 EXAS and MEDP 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.
- Quality44 vs 79MEDP +35
- Risk Resilience67 vs 59EXAS +8
- Value37 vs 30EXAS +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MEDP. MEDP’s edge is concentrated in quality; 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MEDP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXAS and MEDP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MEDP (Medpace Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
EXAS (Exact Sciences Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
MEDPMEDP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EXASEXAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EXASEXAS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MEDP, analyst targets favor EXAS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EXAS | MEDP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.1% | -13% | EXAS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +52.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 9 | 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 MEDP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MEDP | 46 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MEDPon balance | TTM ROE -8.5% vs 110.1%; gross margin 69.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin -6.2% vs 21% — MEDP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EXAS | Value 37 vs 30 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs 9.1%; vs 200-day 41.3% vs 18.2% |
| Risk Resilience | EXAS | Risk Resilience 67 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | EXAS | Target upside 0.1% vs -13% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXAS and MEDP 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 MEDP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MEDP +11
- 46 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- MEDP +12
- 46 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- MEDP +16
- 46 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- MEDP +10
- 46 vs 56
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only MEDP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.31%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +6.43%, AIQ 0 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 Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge.
- 2EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate MEDP'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
MEDP leads on balance| Metric | EXAS | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3.5% | -0.9% |
| Gross margin | 69.7% | 28.8% |
| Operating margin | -6.2% | 21% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.5% | 110.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 0.28 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EXAS | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.2% | 17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 100.3% | 20.9% |
| Year to date | 3.3% | 10.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 133.5% | 19.4% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | EXAS | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.1 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 42.9 | 25.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | 9.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 41.3% | 18.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.2% | 27.9% |
Risk
EXAS is the more resilient| Metric | EXAS | MEDP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.22 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 3.17 | 0.52 |
| Sortino ratio | 12.67 | 0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -5% | -36.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -1.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 44.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXAS or MEDP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MEDP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against EXAS's 46. The edge comes from quality. 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 EXAS or MEDP the better buy right now?
MEDP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 MEDP over EXAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MEDP leads Quality by 35 points; EXAS leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; EXAS leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EXAS or MEDP?
Analyst price targets imply +0.1% upside for EXAS and -13% for MEDP, so the Street currently favors EXAS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MEDP. 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, EXAS or MEDP?
EXAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EXAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, EXAS or MEDP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, EXAS or MEDP?
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, EXAS or MEDP?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS 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 EXAS more profitable than MEDP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 69.7% vs 28.8%; operating margin -6.2% vs 21%; ttm roe -8.5% vs 110.1%. EXAS leads on one measure and MEDP 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 MEDP's lead over EXAS getting stronger or weaker?
MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 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 EXAS vs MEDP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXAS closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge; EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate MEDP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EXAS and MEDP?
EXAS: No active signals. MEDP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. On MEDP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EXAS and MEDP 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.