ILMN vs PRGO Stock Comparison
Compare ILMN and PRGO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ILMN and PRGO?
PRGO leads the current stock comparison as Perrigo Company plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illumina, Inc. vs Perrigo Company plc
PRGO leads
PRGO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PRGO.
Illumina, Inc.
Perrigo Company plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PRGO over ILMN, 51 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. PRGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while ILMN holds the stronger quality profile. PRGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PRGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PRGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Illumina, Inc. and Perrigo Company plc 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 ILMN and PRGO 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 25ILMN +53
- Value26 vs 74PRGO +48
- Momentum47 vs 60PRGO +13
- Risk Resilience40 vs 44PRGO +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PRGO. PRGO’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; ILMN keeps a meaningful quality 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 -9
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
PRGO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ILMN and PRGO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PRGO (Perrigo Company plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ILMN (Illumina, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 51.9% against 45.8%.
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
PRGOPRGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PRGOPRGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PRGOPRGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 48 points.
Momentum
PRGOPRGO on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
PRGOPRGO on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
PRGOPRGO 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 | PRGO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.8% | +46.4% | PRGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 1 | 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 PRGO. 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 | 49 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | ILMNon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 5.5%; EPS growth 55.7% vs 118.8%; TTM ROE 31.1% vs -56%; gross margin 66.8% vs 33.3%; operating margin 21% vs 5.2% — ILMN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PRGO | Value 26 vs 74 |
| Technicals | ILMN | Price vs 50-day 3.3% vs 12.1%; vs 200-day 31.4% vs 11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PRGO | Risk Resilience 40 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | PRGO | Target upside -8.8% vs 46.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ILMN and PRGO 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 PRGO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PRGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PRGO +2
- 49 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- PRGO +3
- 53 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ILMN +7
- 59 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when ILMN moved ahead of PRGO.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (30.49%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.26%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.51%)
ILMN 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.57%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.52%, 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.
- 1ILMN closes the Value gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to PRGO's edge.
- 2ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PRGO 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
ILMN leads on balance| Metric | ILMN | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 55.7% | 118.8% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 33.3% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 5.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.1% | -56% |
| Debt to equity | 0.89 | 1.31 |
Performance
ILMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ILMN | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.6% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.3% | 7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.9% | 21.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 65.7% | 38.5% |
| Year to date | 53.5% | -2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 105% | -39.1% |
Technicals
ILMN has the stronger structure| Metric | ILMN | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.5 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.3 | 42.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.3% | 12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 31.4% | 11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.9% | 45.8% |
Risk
PRGO is the more resilient| Metric | ILMN | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.85 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.63 | -0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.38 | -0.95 |
| Max drawdown | -25.7% | -59% |
| Current drawdown | -11.6% | -39.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.8% | 55% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ILMN or PRGO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PRGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against ILMN's 49. The edge comes from value and momentum. ILMN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 PRGO the better buy right now?
PRGO 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PRGO over ILMN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ILMN leads Quality by 53 points; PRGO leads Value by 48 points; PRGO leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ILMN or PRGO?
Analyst price targets imply -8.8% upside for ILMN and +46.4% for PRGO, so the Street currently favors PRGO. 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 PRGO?
PRGO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PRGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 48 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 PRGO?
PRGO 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 PRGO?
PRGO on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, ILMN or PRGO?
PRGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PRGO 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 ILMN more profitable than PRGO?
ILMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.8% vs 33.3%; operating margin 21% vs 5.2%; ttm roe 31.1% vs -56%.
Is PRGO's lead over ILMN getting stronger or weaker?
PRGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when ILMN moved ahead of PRGO.
What would change the ILMN vs PRGO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ILMN closes the Value gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to PRGO's edge; ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PRGO 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 ILMN and PRGO?
ILMN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PRGO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 PRGO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ILMN and PRGO 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.