ICLR vs KPTI Stock Comparison
Compare ICLR and KPTI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ICLR and KPTI?
KPTI leads the current stock comparison as Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ICON Public Limited Company vs Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.
KPTI leads
KPTI leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support KPTI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ICON Public Limited Company
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KPTI over ICLR, 63 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. KPTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while ICLR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. KPTI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KPTI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ICON Public Limited Company and Karyopharm Therapeutics 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 KPTI 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.
- Quality38 vs 100KPTI +62
- Risk Resilience49 vs 32ICLR +17
- Value67 vs 65Even
- Momentum36 vs 35Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor KPTI. KPTI’s edge is concentrated in quality; ICLR 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 +8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
KPTI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ICLR and KPTI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KPTI (Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
ICLR (ICON Public Limited Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
KPTIKPTI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ICLRICLR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ICLRICLR on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
KPTIKPTI 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 | KPTI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.2% | +533.5% | KPTI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.9% | +127.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KPTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KPTI | 48 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | ICLRon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs -4.7%; EPS growth -31.4% vs -127.5%; TTM ROE 3.5% vs 77.6%; gross margin 21.8% vs 95.9%; operating margin 10.1% vs -56.2% — ICLR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 67 vs 65 |
| Technicals | ICLR | Price vs 50-day 1.2% vs -66.3%; vs 200-day 12.4% vs -76.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ICLR | Risk Resilience 49 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | KPTI | Target upside -4.2% vs 533.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ICLR and KPTI 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 KPTI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KPTI +15
- 48 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- KPTI +16
- 49 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- KPTI +6
- 55 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- KPTI +13
- 58 vs 71
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
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (48.07%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
KPTI 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.62%, AIQ +1 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 Quality gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to KPTI's edge.
- 2ICLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3KPTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
ICLR leads on balance| Metric | ICLR | KPTI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | -4.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -31.4% | -127.5% |
| Gross margin | 21.8% | 95.9% |
| Operating margin | 10.1% | -56.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.5% | 77.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.37 | -0.65 |
Performance
ICLR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ICLR | KPTI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | -9.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | -20.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.6% | -80.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 57.2% | -81.2% |
| Year to date | -9.1% | -75.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.8% | -74.1% |
Technicals
ICLR has the stronger structure| Metric | ICLR | KPTI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 51.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.2% | -66.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.4% | -76.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.7% | 89.4% |
Risk
ICLR is the more resilient| Metric | ICLR | KPTI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.31 | -0.42 |
| Max drawdown | -60.5% | -84.8% |
| Current drawdown | -18.4% | -84.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.3% | 113.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ICLR or KPTI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KPTI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against ICLR's 48. The edge comes from quality. ICLR 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 ICLR or KPTI the better buy right now?
KPTI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KPTI over ICLR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KPTI leads Quality by 62 points; ICLR leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ICLR or KPTI?
Analyst price targets imply -4.2% upside for ICLR and +533.5% for KPTI, so the Street currently favors KPTI. 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 KPTI?
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, ICLR or KPTI?
ICLR 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 KPTI?
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 KPTI?
ICLR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICLR on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 KPTI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.8% vs 95.9%; operating margin 10.1% vs -56.2%; ttm roe 3.5% vs 77.6%. ICLR leads on one measure and KPTI 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 KPTI's lead over ICLR getting stronger or weaker?
KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 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 ICLR vs KPTI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ICLR closes the Quality gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to KPTI's edge; ICLR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; KPTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 KPTI?
ICLR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KPTI: 2 bullish / 3 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 ICLR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KPTI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ICLR and KPTI 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.