FATE vs IBRX Stock Comparison
Compare FATE and IBRX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FATE and IBRX?
IBRX leads the current stock comparison as ImmunityBio, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fate Therapeutics, Inc. vs ImmunityBio, Inc.
IBRX leads
IBRX leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors FATE on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support IBRX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
ImmunityBio, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBRX over FATE, 56 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. IBRX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while FATE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IBRX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FATE. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBRX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IBRX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fate Therapeutics, Inc. and ImmunityBio, 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 FATE and IBRX 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.
- Quality23 vs 100IBRX +77
- Risk Resilience34 vs 28FATE +6
- Momentum43 vs 46Even
- Value34 vs 34Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor IBRX. IBRX’s edge is concentrated in quality; FATE 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 +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -15
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IBRX's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FATE and IBRX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBRX (ImmunityBio, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
FATE (Fate Therapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 58.1% against 53%.
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
IBRXIBRX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IBRXIBRX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FATEFATE on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
FATEFATE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IBRX, analyst targets favor FATE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FATE | IBRX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +143.3% | +51.7% | FATE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +80.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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 IBRX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IBRX | 33 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | IBRXon balance | revenue growth 60.3% vs 15.9%; EPS growth 3.8% vs 64.5%; TTM ROE -65.1% vs 135%; gross margin -3.4% vs 94.6%; operating margin -20.6% vs -151.9% — IBRX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | FATE | Price vs 50-day -12.3% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 33.5% vs 16.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FATE | Risk Resilience 34 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | FATE | Target upside 143.3% vs 51.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FATE and IBRX 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 IBRX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IBRX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBRX +23
- 33 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IBRX +28
- 33 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- IBRX +25
- 39 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- IBRX +24
- 42 vs 66
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (50.82%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.58%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
IBRX 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.86%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.46%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1FATE closes the Quality gap — currently 77 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBRX's edge.
- 2FATE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3IBRX'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
IBRX leads on balance| Metric | FATE | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 60.3% | 15.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.8% | 64.5% |
| Gross margin | -3.4% | 94.6% |
| Operating margin | -20.6% | -151.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -65.1% | 135% |
| Debt to equity | 0.49 | -0.78 |
Performance
IBRX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FATE | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.3% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.6% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 89.4% | -6.7% |
| Year to date | 137.1% | 289.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 141.2% | 220.3% |
Technicals
FATE has the stronger structure| Metric | FATE | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.2 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.3% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.5% | 16.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.1% | 53% |
Risk
FATE is the more resilient| Metric | FATE | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.9 | 1.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.32 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.63 | 3.05 |
| Max drawdown | -41.6% | -42.3% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | -33.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 96.2% | 104.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.7% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FATE or IBRX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBRX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against FATE's 33. The edge comes from quality. FATE 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 FATE or IBRX the better buy right now?
IBRX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 IBRX over FATE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IBRX leads Quality by 77 points; FATE leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FATE or IBRX?
Analyst price targets imply +143.3% upside for FATE and +51.7% for IBRX, so the Street currently favors FATE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IBRX. 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, FATE or IBRX?
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, FATE or IBRX?
IBRX 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, FATE or IBRX?
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, FATE or IBRX?
FATE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FATE on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 FATE more profitable than IBRX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin -3.4% vs 94.6%; operating margin -20.6% vs -151.9%; ttm roe -65.1% vs 135%. FATE leads on one measure and IBRX 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 IBRX's lead over FATE getting stronger or weaker?
IBRX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FATE vs IBRX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FATE closes the Quality gap — currently 77 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBRX's edge; FATE's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; IBRX'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 FATE and IBRX?
FATE: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IBRX: 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 FATE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IBRX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FATE and IBRX 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.