ITCI vs KPTI Stock Comparison

Compare ITCI and KPTI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.

Market data as of Sep 11, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 9 points
ITCI
Healthcare
vs
KPTI
Healthcare
ITCI
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
Price
$132
Day move
-
AIQ Score
54/100
Best edge
Risk Resilience
Sector
Healthcare
KPTI
Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.
Leads
Price
$1.61
Day move
-0.62%
AIQ Score
63/100
Best edge
Quality
Sector
Healthcare

What is the main difference between ITCI 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

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. vs Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

Data as of Sep 11, 2026· market close· Healthcare· Coverage 53/66 fields· Moderate confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 5/10

KPTI leads

KPTI leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.

Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support KPTI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 3 of 5Comparison trend: Strengthening
ITCI

Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.

AIQ Score
54/100
AIQ Edge Score
7/10
KPTI

Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.

Leads
AIQ Score
63/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KPTI over ITCI, 63 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. KPTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while ITCI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor KPTI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.

Compare Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. and Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Price-return comparison using available daily close history.

ITCI
+294.9%
KPTI
-73.0%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000

ITCI $39,485 · KPTI $2,705

Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.

Compare ITCI and KPTI against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

ITCI advantage
0
KPTI advantage
  • Risk Resilience82 vs 32
    ITCI +50
  • Quality60 vs 100
    KPTI +40
  • Value34 vs 65
    KPTI +31

3 of 5 evidence groups favor KPTI. KPTI’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; ITCI 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.

ITCI0 AIQ

No factor moved materially.

No new signals fired.

KPTI+1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +3

New signals

  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon

KPTI's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITCI and KPTI both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

KPTI (Karyopharm Therapeutics Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.

ITCI (Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.

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

KPTI

KPTI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.

Growth

ITCI

ITCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.

Value

KPTI

KPTI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.

Momentum

Even

The two are level on Momentum.

Lower downside

ITCI

ITCI on Risk Resilience, by 50 points.

Analyst upside

KPTI

KPTI 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.

MeasureITCIKPTINote
Implied upside to target+0.1%+533.5%KPTI has more room
Target dispersion0%+127.5%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusHoldBuyContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering14Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor KPTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreKPTI54 vs 63
FundamentalsITCIon balancerevenue growth 13.7% vs -4.7%; EPS growth 3.2% vs -127.5%; TTM ROE -8.6% vs 77.6%; gross margin 91.6% vs 95.9%; operating margin -17.1% vs -56.2% — ITCI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them
ValuationKPTIValue 34 vs 65
TechnicalsNot coveredNot covered
Risk ResilienceITCIRisk Resilience 82 vs 32
Analyst expectationsKPTITarget upside 0.1% vs 533.5%

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITCI and KPTI and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
  • The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • 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 KPTI.

How the comparison changed

119 daily snapshots · May 4 Sep 10

KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.

May 4ITCI leads above the line · KPTI leads belowSep 10
Today
KPTI +9
54 vs 63
7 sessions ago
KPTI +11
54 vs 65
30 sessions ago
KPTI +4
57 vs 61
90 sessions ago
KPTI +14
57 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.

ITCI

No active signals

KPTIConflicted

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.

KPTIDivergence

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.

  1. 1ITCI closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to KPTI's edge.
  2. 2ITCI generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
  3. 3KPTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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
MetricITCIKPTI
Revenue growth (YoY)13.7%-4.7%
EPS growth (YoY)3.2%-127.5%
Gross margin91.6%95.9%
Operating margin-17.1%-56.2%
Return on equity (TTM)-8.6%77.6%
Debt to equity0.01-0.65

Performance

Split across windows
MetricITCIKPTI
1 week (5 sessions)-9.5%
1 month (20 sessions)-20.2%
3 months (63 sessions)-80.4%
6 months (126 sessions)-81.2%
Year to date-75.9%
1 year (252 sessions)-74.1%

Technicals

Split
MetricITCIKPTI
RSI (14)40.9
ADX (14)51.6
Price vs 50-day-66.3%
Price vs 200-day-76.1%
Volatility (1M, annualized)89.4%

Risk

ITCI is the more resilient
MetricITCIKPTI
Beta0.61
Sharpe ratio-0.41
Sortino ratio-0.42
Max drawdown-84.8%
Current drawdown-84.8%
Annualized volatility113.6%
Value at risk (95%)-8%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, ITCI or KPTI?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KPTI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against ITCI's 54. The edge comes from quality and value. ITCI 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 ITCI or KPTI the better buy right now?

KPTI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

Why does the AIQ Score favor KPTI over ITCI?

The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ITCI leads Risk Resilience by 50 points; KPTI leads Quality by 40 points; KPTI leads Value by 31 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which has more analyst upside, ITCI or KPTI?

Analyst price targets imply +0.1% upside for ITCI 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, ITCI or KPTI?

KPTI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KPTI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, ITCI or KPTI?

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, ITCI 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, ITCI or KPTI?

ITCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITCI on Risk Resilience, by 50 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 ITCI more profitable than KPTI?

The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 91.6% vs 95.9%; operating margin -17.1% vs -56.2%; ttm roe -8.6% vs 77.6%. ITCI 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 ITCI getting stronger or weaker?

KPTI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 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 ITCI vs KPTI verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ITCI closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to KPTI's edge; ITCI generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; 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 ITCI and KPTI?

ITCI: No active signals. 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. On KPTI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).

Compare ITCI 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.