ITCI vs NTLA Stock Comparison
Compare ITCI and NTLA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ITCI and NTLA?
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
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. vs Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
ITCI leads
ITCI leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NTLA on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 5 evidence groups support ITCI, and its lead is widening.
Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc.
Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ITCI over NTLA, 54 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. ITCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors NTLA. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ITCI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. ITCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intra-Cellular Therapies, Inc. and Intellia 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 ITCI and NTLA 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.
- Risk Resilience82 vs 42ITCI +40
- Quality60 vs 28ITCI +32
- Value34 vs 34Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor ITCI. ITCI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
ITCI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITCI and NTLA 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.
NTLA (Intellia Therapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ITCIITCI on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
NTLANTLA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ITCI, analyst targets favor NTLA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ITCI | NTLA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.1% | +99.3% | NTLA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +170.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 54 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | ITCIon balance | revenue growth 13.7% vs -49.1%; EPS growth 3.2% vs 1.2%; TTM ROE -8.6% vs -57.8%; gross margin 91.6% vs -46.5%; operating margin -17.1% vs -7.1% — ITCI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | ITCI | Risk Resilience 82 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | NTLA | Target upside 0.1% vs 99.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITCI and NTLA 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 wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 16 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ITCI +20
- 54 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- ITCI +16
- 54 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- ITCI +16
- 57 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- ITCI +12
- 57 vs 45
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.
No active signals
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.50%)
NTLA 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.59%, 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.
- 1NTLA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITCI's edge.
- 2NTLA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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 | ITCI | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -49.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 1.2% |
| Gross margin | 91.6% | -46.5% |
| Operating margin | -17.1% | -7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.6% | -57.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ITCI | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | — | -6.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | — | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | — | -2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | — | -8.3% |
| Year to date | — | 32.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 0.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ITCI | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | — | 42.7 |
| ADX (14) | — | 14.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | — | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | — | -5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 71% |
Risk
ITCI is the more resilient| Metric | ITCI | NTLA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | — | 2.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | — | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | — | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | — | -71.3% |
| Current drawdown | — | -57.4% |
| Annualized volatility | — | 100.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | — | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ITCI or NTLA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ITCI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against NTLA's 34. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 NTLA the better buy right now?
ITCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 NTLA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ITCI leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; ITCI leads Quality by 32 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ITCI or NTLA?
Analyst price targets imply +0.1% upside for ITCI and +99.3% for NTLA, so the Street currently favors NTLA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ITCI. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ITCI or NTLA?
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, ITCI or NTLA?
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 NTLA?
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 NTLA?
ITCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITCI on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 NTLA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 91.6% vs -46.5%; operating margin -17.1% vs -7.1%; ttm roe -8.6% vs -57.8%. ITCI leads on two measures and NTLA 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 NTLA getting stronger or weaker?
ITCI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 20 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 NTLA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTLA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITCI's edge; NTLA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 ITCI and NTLA?
ITCI: No active signals. NTLA: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 NTLA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ITCI and NTLA 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.