MEDP vs PRGO Stock Comparison
MEDP currently leads PRGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 55. The clearest difference is quality, while PRGO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MEDP and PRGO?
MEDP leads the current stock comparison as Medpace Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Medpace Holdings, Inc. vs Perrigo Company plc
MEDP leads
MEDP leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PRGO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MEDP, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
Perrigo Company plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MEDP over PRGO, 57 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. MEDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while PRGO holds the stronger value profile. MEDP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PRGO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MEDP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Medpace Holdings, Inc. and Perrigo Company plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare MEDP 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.
- Quality79 vs 25MEDP +54
- Value30 vs 74PRGO +44
- Risk Resilience59 vs 44MEDP +15
- Momentum62 vs 74PRGO +12
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MEDP. MEDP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; PRGO keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
MEDP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MEDP and PRGO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MEDP (Medpace Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
PRGO (Perrigo Company plc): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 49.5% against 27.9%.
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
MEDPMEDP 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 44 points.
Momentum
PRGOPRGO on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
MEDPMEDP on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
PRGOPRGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MEDP, analyst targets favor PRGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MEDP | PRGO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13% | +25.7% | PRGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | 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
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 | 57 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | MEDPon balance | TTM ROE 110.1% vs -56%; gross margin 28.8% vs 33.3%; operating margin 21% vs 5.2% — MEDP takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PRGO | Value 30 vs 74 |
| Technicals | PRGO | Price vs 50-day 9.1% vs 10.7%; vs 200-day 18.2% vs 30.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MEDP | Risk Resilience 59 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | PRGO | Target upside -13% vs 25.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MEDP 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 MEDP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MEDP +2
- 57 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- MEDP +4
- 58 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MEDP +9
- 62 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when MEDP 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only PRGO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.19%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +6.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.61%, 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.
- 1PRGO closes the Quality gap — currently 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge.
- 2PRGO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate MEDP's advantage entirely.
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 | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.1% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.9% | 118.8% |
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 33.3% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 5.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 110.1% | -56% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 1.31 |
Performance
PRGO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MEDP | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 13% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.9% | 54.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.9% | 37.9% |
| Year to date | 10.8% | 15.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.4% | -24.9% |
Technicals
PRGO has the stronger structure| Metric | MEDP | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 63.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.1% | 10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.2% | 30.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.9% | 49.5% |
Risk
MEDP is the more resilient| Metric | MEDP | PRGO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | -0.42 |
| Max drawdown | -36.6% | -57.8% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -26.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.2% | 56.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MEDP or PRGO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MEDP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against PRGO's 55. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. PRGO is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 PRGO the better buy right now?
MEDP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MEDP over PRGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MEDP leads Quality by 54 points; PRGO leads Value by 44 points; MEDP leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MEDP or PRGO?
Analyst price targets imply -13% upside for MEDP and +25.7% for PRGO, so the Street currently favors PRGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MEDP. 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, MEDP or PRGO?
PRGO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PRGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 44 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 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, MEDP or PRGO?
PRGO on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, MEDP or PRGO?
MEDP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MEDP on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 MEDP more profitable than PRGO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.8% vs 33.3%; operating margin 21% vs 5.2%; ttm roe 110.1% vs -56%. MEDP leads on two measures and PRGO 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 PRGO getting stronger or weaker?
MEDP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-05, when MEDP moved ahead of PRGO.
What would change the MEDP vs PRGO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PRGO closes the Quality gap — currently 54 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge; PRGO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate MEDP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MEDP and PRGO?
MEDP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. PRGO: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MEDP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PRGO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MEDP 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.