MEDP vs NTRA Stock Comparison
Medpace Holdings, Inc. vs Natera, Inc.
MEDP leads
MEDP leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from NTRA.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MEDP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
Natera, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MEDP over NTRA, 53 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. MEDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while NTRA holds the stronger momentum profile. MEDP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MEDP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MEDP lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MEDP now leads by 1.
Compare Medpace Holdings, Inc. and Natera, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare MEDP 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.
- Quality30%79 vs 57MEDP +22
- Momentum25%44 vs 63NTRA +19
- Value30%30 vs 34NTRA +4
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 63Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MEDP. MEDP’s edge is concentrated in quality; NTRA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +9
No new signals fired.
MEDP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MEDP and NTRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MEDP (Medpace Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
NTRA (Natera, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
MEDPMEDP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NTRANTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTRANTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
NTRANTRA on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MEDPMEDP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MEDPMEDP 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 | MEDP | NTRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.8% | -7.6% | MEDP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.4% | +51.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 14 | 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 MEDP. 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 | 53 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | MEDPon balance | TTM ROE 110.1% vs -11.7%; gross margin 28.8% vs 65.3%; operating margin 21% vs -10.7% — MEDP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NTRA | Value 30 vs 34 |
| Technicals | NTRA | Price vs 50-day 3% vs 12.3%; vs 200-day 13.5% vs 39.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | MEDP | Target upside -5.8% vs -7.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MEDP 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 already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MEDP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4MEDP lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MEDP now leads by 1.
- Today
- MEDP +1
- 53 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MEDP +2
- 55 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- NTRA +6
- 52 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- MEDP +5
- 64 vs 59
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when MEDP 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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.23%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.03%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
MEDP 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.35%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.16%, AIQ 0 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 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge.
- 2NTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MEDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
MEDP leads on balance| Metric | MEDP | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.1% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.9% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 65.3% |
| Operating margin | 21% | -10.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 110.1% | -11.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.13 |
Performance
NTRA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MEDP | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.1% | 1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 30.2% | 52.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 25.6% | 65.6% |
| Year to date | 5.3% | 43.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.1% | 95.9% |
Technicals
NTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | MEDP | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 38.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | 12.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.5% | 39.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.7% | 28.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MEDP | NTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.74 | 1.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.6 | 1.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 2.53 |
| Max drawdown | -36.6% | -28.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -3.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.8% | 48.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MEDP or NTRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MEDP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against NTRA's 52. The edge comes from quality. NTRA is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 MEDP or NTRA the better buy right now?
MEDP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 MEDP over NTRA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MEDP leads Quality by 22 points; NTRA leads Momentum by 19 points; NTRA leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MEDP or NTRA?
Analyst price targets imply -5.8% upside for MEDP and -7.6% for NTRA, so the Street currently favors MEDP. 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, MEDP or NTRA?
NTRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, MEDP or NTRA?
NTRA 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, MEDP or NTRA?
NTRA on the Momentum factor, by 19 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, MEDP or NTRA?
MEDP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MEDP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MEDP more profitable than NTRA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.8% vs 65.3%; operating margin 21% vs -10.7%; ttm roe 110.1% vs -11.7%. MEDP leads on two measures and NTRA 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 MEDP's lead over NTRA getting stronger or weaker?
MEDP lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MEDP now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when MEDP moved ahead of NTRA.
What would change the MEDP 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 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge; NTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MEDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about MEDP and NTRA?
MEDP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. NTRA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 MEDP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NTRA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MEDP and NTRA with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.