ILMN vs NTRA Stock Comparison
ILMN currently leads NTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 54. The clearest difference is quality, while NTRA has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ILMN and NTRA?
ILMN leads the current stock comparison as Illumina, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illumina, Inc. vs Natera, Inc.
ILMN leads
ILMN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ILMN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Illumina, Inc.
Natera, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ILMN over NTRA, 55 versus 54 as of Oct 31, 2026. ILMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while NTRA holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ILMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ILMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Illumina, Inc. and Natera, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ILMN and NTRA 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.
- Quality78 vs 57ILMN +21
- Risk Resilience38 vs 57NTRA +19
- Value26 vs 34NTRA +8
- Momentum72 vs 74Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ILMN. ILMN’s edge is concentrated in quality; NTRA keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
ILMN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ILMN and NTRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ILMN (Illumina, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
NTRA (Natera, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
ILMNILMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ILMNILMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTRANTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NTRANTRA on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
ILMNILMN 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 | ILMN | NTRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.5% | -17.4% | ILMN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.6% | +81.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 16 | 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 ILMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 55 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | ILMNon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 8.1%; EPS growth 55.7% vs 21.7%; TTM ROE 31.1% vs -11.7%; gross margin 66.8% vs 65.3%; operating margin 21% vs -10.7% — ILMN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NTRA | Value 26 vs 34 |
| Technicals | NTRA | Price vs 50-day -4.5% vs 11.1%; vs 200-day 65.1% vs 60.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NTRA | Risk Resilience 38 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | ILMN | Target upside -4.5% vs -17.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ILMN and NTRA 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- 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 ILMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ILMN +1
- 55 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- ILMN +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- ILMN +3
- 56 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- ILMN +3
- 60 vs 57
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when ILMN moved ahead of NTRA.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTRA
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.0%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ILMN 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -18.64%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.98%, 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.
- 1NTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to ILMN's edge.
- 2NTRA's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ILMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ILMN leads on balance| Metric | ILMN | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 55.7% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 65.3% |
| Operating margin | 21% | -10.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.1% | -11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.89 | 0.13 |
Performance
ILMN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ILMN | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.5% | 2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 40.8% | 57.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 130.2% | 117.9% |
| Year to date | 113% | 80.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 188.5% | 120.5% |
Technicals
NTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | ILMN | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.5 | 68.2 |
| ADX (14) | 37.1 | 31.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.5% | 11.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 65.1% | 60.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.4% | 37.2% |
Risk
NTRA is the more resilient| Metric | ILMN | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.35 | 1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.82 | 2.94 |
| Max drawdown | -25.7% | -28.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.7% | -0.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.9% | 48.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ILMN or NTRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ILMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against NTRA's 54. The edge comes from quality. NTRA 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 ILMN or NTRA the better buy right now?
ILMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ILMN over NTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ILMN leads Quality by 21 points; NTRA leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; NTRA leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ILMN or NTRA?
Analyst price targets imply -4.5% upside for ILMN and -17.4% for NTRA, so the Street currently favors ILMN. 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, ILMN or NTRA?
NTRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, ILMN or NTRA?
ILMN 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, ILMN or NTRA?
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, ILMN or NTRA?
NTRA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NTRA on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 ILMN more profitable than NTRA?
ILMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.8% vs 65.3%; operating margin 21% vs -10.7%; ttm roe 31.1% vs -11.7%.
Is ILMN's lead over NTRA getting stronger or weaker?
ILMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when ILMN moved ahead of NTRA.
What would change the ILMN vs NTRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to ILMN's edge; NTRA's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ILMN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ILMN and NTRA?
ILMN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NTRA: 4 bullish / 2 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 ILMN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NTRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ILMN and NTRA 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.