ICLR vs IOVA Stock Comparison
Compare ICLR and IOVA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ICLR and IOVA?
ICLR leads the current stock comparison as ICON Public Limited Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ICON Public Limited Company vs Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
ICLR leads
ICLR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ICLR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ICON Public Limited Company
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ICLR over IOVA, 48 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. ICLR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while IOVA holds the stronger momentum profile. ICLR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ICLR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ICON Public Limited Company and Iovance Biotherapeutics, 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 ICLR and IOVA 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.
- Value67 vs 34ICLR +33
- Momentum36 vs 51IOVA +15
- Quality38 vs 30ICLR +8
- Risk Resilience49 vs 53IOVA +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ICLR. ICLR’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; IOVA keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -15
No new signals fired.
ICLR's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICLR and IOVA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ICLR (ICON Public Limited Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
IOVA (Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 85.7% against 35.7%.
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
ICLRICLR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IOVAIOVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ICLRICLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
IOVAIOVA on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
IOVAIOVA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ICLRICLR 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 | ICLR | IOVA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.2% | -9% | ICLR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.9% | +102.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | 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 ICLR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ICLR | 48 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | IOVAon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 39%; EPS growth -31.4% vs 42.1%; TTM ROE 3.5% vs -40.5%; gross margin 21.8% vs 116.3%; operating margin 10.1% vs -92.7% — IOVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ICLR | Value 67 vs 34 |
| Technicals | IOVA | Price vs 50-day 1.2% vs 39.8%; vs 200-day 12.4% vs 102.5% |
| Risk Resilience | IOVA | Risk Resilience 49 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ICLR | Target upside -4.2% vs -9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICLR and IOVA 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ICLR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ICLR +8
- 48 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- ICLR +3
- 49 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- ICLR +8
- 55 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- ICLR +14
- 58 vs 44
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 (13.50%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.03%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (53.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
ICLR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.18%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +5.65%, 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.
- 1IOVA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICLR's edge.
- 2IOVA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ICLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
IOVA leads on balance| Metric | ICLR | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 39% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.4% | 42.1% |
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 116.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.1% | -92.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.5% | -40.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.37 | 0.06 |
Performance
IOVA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ICLR | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | -5.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | 20.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.6% | 115.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 57.2% | 68.2% |
| Year to date | -9.1% | 198.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.8% | 242% |
Technicals
IOVA has the stronger structure| Metric | ICLR | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 38 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 50.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.2% | 39.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.4% | 102.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.7% | 85.7% |
Risk
IOVA is the more resilient| Metric | ICLR | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 1.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | 3.84 |
| Max drawdown | -60.5% | -39% |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | -9.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.3% | 100.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -6.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICLR or IOVA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ICLR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against IOVA's 40. The edge comes from value and quality. IOVA is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ICLR or IOVA the better buy right now?
ICLR 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 ICLR over IOVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ICLR leads Value by 33 points; IOVA leads Momentum by 15 points; ICLR leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICLR or IOVA?
Analyst price targets imply -4.2% upside for ICLR and -9% for IOVA, so the Street currently favors ICLR. 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, ICLR or IOVA?
ICLR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ICLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, ICLR or IOVA?
IOVA 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, ICLR or IOVA?
IOVA on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, ICLR or IOVA?
IOVA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IOVA on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ICLR more profitable than IOVA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.8% vs 116.3%; operating margin 10.1% vs -92.7%; ttm roe 3.5% vs -40.5%. ICLR leads on two measures and IOVA 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 ICLR's lead over IOVA getting stronger or weaker?
ICLR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 ICLR vs IOVA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IOVA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICLR's edge; IOVA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ICLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 ICLR and IOVA?
ICLR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IOVA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 ICLR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IOVA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ICLR and IOVA 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.