ICLR vs ITCI Stock Comparison
Compare ICLR and ITCI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ICLR and ITCI?
ITCI leads the current stock comparison as Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ICON Public Limited Company vs Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
ITCI leads
ITCI leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support ITCI, and its lead is widening.
ICON Public Limited Company
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ITCI over ICLR, 54 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. ITCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ICLR holds the stronger value profile. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ITCI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. ITCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ICON Public Limited Company and Intra-Cellular Therapies, 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 ITCI 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
- Risk Resilience49 vs 82ITCI +33
- Quality38 vs 60ITCI +22
4 of 5 evidence groups favor ITCI. ITCI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; ICLR keeps a meaningful value 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ITCI's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICLR and ITCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ITCI (Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
ICLR (ICON Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
ITCIITCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ITCIITCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ICLRICLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ITCIITCI on Risk Resilience, by 33 points.
Analyst upside
ITCIITCI 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 | ITCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.2% | +0.1% | ITCI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ITCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ITCI | 48 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | ITCIon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 13.7%; EPS growth -31.4% vs 3.2%; TTM ROE 3.5% vs -8.6%; gross margin 21.8% vs 91.6%; operating margin 10.1% vs -17.1% — ITCI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ICLR | Value 67 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | ITCI | Risk Resilience 49 vs 82 |
| Analyst expectations | ITCI | Target upside -4.2% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICLR and ITCI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 ITCI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ITCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ITCI +6
- 48 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- ITCI +5
- 49 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- ITCI +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- ICLR +1
- 58 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when ITCI moved ahead of ICLR.
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
No active signals
ICLR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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).
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.
- 1ICLR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITCI's edge.
- 2ICLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ITCI starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
ITCI leads on balance| Metric | ICLR | ITCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.4% | 3.2% |
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 91.6% |
| Operating margin | 10.1% | -17.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.5% | -8.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.37 | 0.01 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ICLR | ITCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.6% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 57.2% | — |
| Year to date | -9.1% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.8% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ICLR | ITCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | — |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.2% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.4% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.7% | — |
Risk
ITCI is the more resilient| Metric | ICLR | ITCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | — |
| Max drawdown | -60.5% | — |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 67.3% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICLR or ITCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ITCI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against ICLR's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. ICLR is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ITCI the better buy right now?
ITCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ITCI over ICLR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ICLR leads Value by 33 points; ITCI leads Risk Resilience by 33 points; ITCI leads Quality by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICLR or ITCI?
Analyst price targets imply -4.2% upside for ICLR and +0.1% for ITCI, so the Street currently favors ITCI. 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 ITCI?
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 ITCI?
ITCI 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 ITCI?
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, ICLR or ITCI?
ITCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITCI on Risk Resilience, by 33 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 ITCI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.8% vs 91.6%; operating margin 10.1% vs -17.1%; ttm roe 3.5% vs -8.6%. ICLR leads on two measures and ITCI 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 ITCI's lead over ICLR getting stronger or weaker?
ITCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 6 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when ITCI moved ahead of ICLR.
What would change the ICLR vs ITCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICLR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITCI's edge; ICLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ITCI starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ITCI?
ICLR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ITCI: No active signals. 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).
Compare ICLR and ITCI 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.