LEGN vs MRVI Stock Comparison
LEGN currently leads MRVI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 46. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between LEGN and MRVI?
LEGN leads the current stock comparison as Legend Biotech Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Legend Biotech Corporation vs Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc.
LEGN leads
LEGN leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support LEGN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Legend Biotech Corporation
Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LEGN over MRVI, 59 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. LEGN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. LEGN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LEGN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. LEGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Legend Biotech Corporation and Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, 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 LEGN and MRVI 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.
- Value54 vs 34LEGN +20
- Quality52 vs 33LEGN +19
- Momentum80 vs 74LEGN +6
- Risk Resilience45 vs 46Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor LEGN. LEGN’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 +12
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
LEGN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LEGN and MRVI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LEGN (Legend Biotech Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MRVI (Maravai LifeSciences Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 86% against 57.4%.
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
LEGNLEGN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LEGNLEGN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LEGNLEGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
LEGNLEGN on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
LEGNLEGN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
LEGNLEGN 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 | LEGN | MRVI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +160.2% | -10.4% | LEGN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +88.8% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LEGN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LEGN | 59 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | LEGNon balance | revenue growth 27% vs -21.9%; EPS growth 160% vs -213.7%; TTM ROE -8.7% vs -35.4%; gross margin 56.6% vs 34.6%; operating margin -4.4% vs 46% — LEGN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LEGN | Value 54 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MRVI | Price vs 50-day 10.6% vs 4.4%; vs 200-day 1.7% vs 63.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 45 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | LEGN | Target upside 160.2% vs -10.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LEGN and MRVI 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 LEGN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28LEGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LEGN +13
- 59 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- LEGN +14
- 50 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- LEGN +9
- 52 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- LEGN +1
- 48 vs 47
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only LEGN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.26%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only MRVI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (44.06%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakout, MACD Bullish Crossover.
LEGN 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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -7.68%, 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.
- 1MRVI closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to LEGN's edge.
- 2MRVI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LEGN'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
LEGN leads on balance| Metric | LEGN | MRVI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27% | -21.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 160% | -213.7% |
| Gross margin | 56.6% | 34.6% |
| Operating margin | -4.4% | 46% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.7% | -35.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.86 |
Performance
MRVI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LEGN | MRVI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 20.9% | 12.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.3% | 11% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 18.3% | 25.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.1% | 144.3% |
| Year to date | 3.6% | 161.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.8% | 149.3% |
Technicals
MRVI has the stronger structure| Metric | LEGN | MRVI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.1 | 63.8 |
| ADX (14) | 17.4 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.6% | 4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.7% | 63.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.4% | 86% |
Risk
Split| Metric | LEGN | MRVI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 1.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | 1.68 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.34 | 3.27 |
| Max drawdown | -53.1% | -29.6% |
| Current drawdown | -37.9% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 75.7% | 69.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -6.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LEGN or MRVI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LEGN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against MRVI's 46. The edge comes from value 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 LEGN or MRVI the better buy right now?
LEGN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LEGN over MRVI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LEGN leads Value by 20 points; LEGN leads Quality by 19 points; LEGN leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LEGN or MRVI?
Analyst price targets imply +160.2% upside for LEGN and -10.4% for MRVI, so the Street currently favors LEGN. 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, LEGN or MRVI?
LEGN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LEGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, LEGN or MRVI?
LEGN 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, LEGN or MRVI?
LEGN on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, LEGN or MRVI?
LEGN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LEGN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LEGN more profitable than MRVI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.6% vs 34.6%; operating margin -4.4% vs 46%; ttm roe -8.7% vs -35.4%. LEGN leads on two measures and MRVI 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 LEGN's lead over MRVI getting stronger or weaker?
LEGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LEGN vs MRVI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRVI closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to LEGN's edge; MRVI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LEGN'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 LEGN and MRVI?
LEGN: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MRVI: 5 bullish / 0 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 LEGN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MRVI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LEGN and MRVI 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.