FTNT vs RIGL Stock Comparison
Compare FTNT and RIGL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FTNT and RIGL?
RIGL leads the current stock comparison as Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fortinet, Inc. vs Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
RIGL leads
RIGL leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RIGL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fortinet, Inc.
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIGL over FTNT, 75 versus 58 as of Sep 11, 2026. RIGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. RIGL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIGL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 17 points over 30 sessions. RIGL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Fortinet, Inc. and Rigel Pharmaceuticals, 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 FTNT and RIGL 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.
- Value27 vs 63RIGL +36
- Momentum53 vs 69RIGL +16
- Risk Resilience51 vs 58RIGL +7
- Quality95 vs 99RIGL +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RIGL. RIGL’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
RIGL's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FTNT and RIGL both carry a full feed there.
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
RIGLRIGL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIGLRIGL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RIGLRIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
RIGLRIGL on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
RIGLRIGL on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
RIGLRIGL 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 | FTNT | RIGL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.7% | +41.8% | RIGL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +91.4% | +53.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIGL | 58 vs 75 |
| Fundamentals | RIGLon balance | revenue growth 10.7% vs 33.8%; EPS growth 15.3% vs 97.9%; TTM ROE 187.9% vs 96.5%; gross margin 80.4% vs 91.4%; operating margin 32.4% vs 31.5% — RIGL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RIGL | Value 27 vs 63 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.9% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day 42.8% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | RIGL | Risk Resilience 51 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | RIGL | Target upside -6.7% vs 41.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FTNT and RIGL 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 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 RIGL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RIGL +17
- 58 vs 75
- 7 sessions ago
- RIGL +21
- 56 vs 77
- 30 sessions ago
- RIGL +22
- 56 vs 78
- 90 sessions ago
- RIGL +15
- 63 vs 78
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 12 when RIGL moved ahead of FTNT.
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 (42.98%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.24%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.26%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
RIGL 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 -1.75%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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.
- 1FTNT closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge.
- 2FTNT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate RIGL'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
RIGL leads on balance| Metric | FTNT | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.7% | 33.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.3% | 97.9% |
| Gross margin | 80.4% | 91.4% |
| Operating margin | 32.4% | 31.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 187.9% | 96.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.32 | 0.09 |
Performance
FTNT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FTNT | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.8% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 12.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.4% | 53% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 90.3% | 73.5% |
| Year to date | 100% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 97.7% | 15.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FTNT | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.9 | 59.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 37.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.9% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 42.8% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 45% |
Risk
RIGL is the more resilient| Metric | FTNT | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.01 | 0.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.77 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.25 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -14.3% | -50.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.1% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.5% | 64.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FTNT or RIGL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIGL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 75 against FTNT's 58. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 FTNT or RIGL the better buy right now?
RIGL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 RIGL over FTNT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIGL leads Value by 36 points; RIGL leads Momentum by 16 points; RIGL leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. RIGL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FTNT simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FTNT or RIGL?
Analyst price targets imply -6.7% upside for FTNT and +41.8% for RIGL, so the Street currently favors RIGL. 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, FTNT or RIGL?
RIGL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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, FTNT or RIGL?
RIGL 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, FTNT or RIGL?
RIGL on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, FTNT or RIGL?
RIGL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIGL on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 FTNT more profitable than RIGL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 80.4% vs 91.4%; operating margin 32.4% vs 31.5%; ttm roe 187.9% vs 96.5%. FTNT leads on two measures and RIGL 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 RIGL's lead over FTNT getting stronger or weaker?
RIGL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 17 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-12, when RIGL moved ahead of FTNT.
What would change the FTNT vs RIGL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FTNT closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge; FTNT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate RIGL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FTNT and RIGL?
FTNT: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RIGL: 3 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 FTNT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RIGL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FTNT and RIGL 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.