FOLD vs IBRX Stock Comparison
Compare FOLD and IBRX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FOLD 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
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc. vs ImmunityBio, Inc.
IBRX leads
IBRX leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IBRX, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.
ImmunityBio, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBRX over FOLD, 56 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. IBRX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while FOLD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IBRX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBRX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IBRX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amicus 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 FOLD 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.
- Quality34 vs 100IBRX +66
- Risk Resilience66 vs 28FOLD +38
- Value35 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IBRX. IBRX’s edge is concentrated in quality; FOLD 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -15
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
IBRX's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FOLD and IBRX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBRX (ImmunityBio, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
FOLD (Amicus Therapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
FOLDFOLD on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
IBRXIBRX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FOLD | IBRX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.1% | +51.7% | IBRX has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 41 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | IBRXon balance | revenue growth 9.6% vs 15.9%; EPS growth -90.4% vs 64.5%; TTM ROE -12% vs 135%; gross margin 87.9% vs 94.6%; operating margin 5.2% vs -151.9% — IBRX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 34 |
| Technicals | FOLD | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 33.8% vs 16.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FOLD | Risk Resilience 66 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | IBRX | Target upside 0.1% vs 51.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FOLD and IBRX 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 wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 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 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBRX +15
- 41 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- IBRX +20
- 41 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- IBRX +23
- 41 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- IBRX +25
- 41 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.
No active signals
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 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.
- 1FOLD closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBRX's edge.
- 2FOLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3IBRX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate IBRX'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
IBRX leads on balance| Metric | FOLD | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.6% | 15.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -90.4% | 64.5% |
| Gross margin | 87.9% | 94.6% |
| Operating margin | 5.2% | -151.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12% | 135% |
| Debt to equity | 1.76 | -0.78 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FOLD | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.4% | -0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 71.1% | -6.7% |
| Year to date | 1.8% | 289.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 109.7% | 220.3% |
Technicals
FOLD has the stronger structure| Metric | FOLD | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 68 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.8% | 16.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 1.6% | 53% |
Risk
FOLD is the more resilient| Metric | FOLD | IBRX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.35 | 1.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.48 | 1.5 |
| Sortino ratio | 7.38 | 3.05 |
| Max drawdown | -10% | -42.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -33.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.7% | 104.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FOLD or IBRX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBRX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against FOLD's 41. The edge comes from quality. FOLD 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 FOLD or IBRX the better buy right now?
IBRX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBRX over FOLD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IBRX leads Quality by 66 points; FOLD leads Risk Resilience by 38 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FOLD or IBRX?
Analyst price targets imply +0.1% upside for FOLD and +51.7% for IBRX, so the Street currently favors IBRX. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FOLD 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, FOLD 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, FOLD 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, FOLD or IBRX?
FOLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FOLD on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 FOLD more profitable than IBRX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.9% vs 94.6%; operating margin 5.2% vs -151.9%; ttm roe -12% vs 135%. FOLD 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 FOLD getting stronger or weaker?
IBRX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 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 FOLD vs IBRX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FOLD closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBRX's edge; FOLD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; IBRX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate IBRX's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FOLD and IBRX?
FOLD: No active signals. 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. On IBRX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FOLD 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.