MEDP vs RVTY Stock Comparison
MEDP currently leads RVTY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality, while RVTY has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MEDP and RVTY?
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 Revvity, Inc.
MEDP leads
MEDP leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MEDP, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Medpace Holdings, Inc.
Revvity, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MEDP over RVTY, 57 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. MEDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while RVTY holds the stronger value 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 5 points. MEDP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Medpace Holdings, Inc. and Revvity, Inc. 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 RVTY 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 50MEDP +29
- Value30 vs 42RVTY +12
- Momentum62 vs 62Even
- Risk Resilience59 vs 59Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MEDP. MEDP’s edge is concentrated in quality; RVTY 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 +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MEDP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MEDP and RVTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MEDP (Medpace Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
RVTY (Revvity, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 34.5% against 27.9%.
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
RVTYRVTY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RVTYRVTY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
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 | RVTY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13% | -16.1% | MEDP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.1% | +49.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | 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 | MEDP | 57 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 0.1% vs 2.6%; TTM ROE 110.1% vs 3.3%; gross margin 28.8% vs 52.1%; operating margin 21% vs 12.3% |
| Valuation | RVTY | Value 30 vs 42 |
| Technicals | RVTY | Price vs 50-day 9.1% vs 13.8%; vs 200-day 18.2% vs 42.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | MEDP | Target upside -13% vs -16.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MEDP and RVTY 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MEDP +5
- 57 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MEDP +6
- 58 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- MEDP +6
- 62 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when MEDP moved ahead of RVTY.
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
Only MEDP
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RVTY
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.64%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
RVTY 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.
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.38%, 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.
- 1RVTY closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge.
- 2RVTY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | MEDP | RVTY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.1% | 2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.9% | 30.6% |
| Gross margin | 28.8% | 52.1% |
| Operating margin | 21% | 12.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 110.1% | 3.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.46 |
Performance
RVTY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MEDP | RVTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | 8.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.9% | 41.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.9% | 65.5% |
| Year to date | 10.8% | 60.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.4% | 66% |
Technicals
RVTY has the stronger structure| Metric | MEDP | RVTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 54.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 39.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.1% | 13.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.2% | 42.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.9% | 34.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MEDP | RVTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 1.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | 2.4 |
| Max drawdown | -36.6% | -30.1% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -0.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.2% | 39% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MEDP or RVTY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MEDP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against RVTY's 52. The edge comes from quality. RVTY 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 RVTY 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MEDP over RVTY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MEDP leads Quality by 29 points; RVTY leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MEDP or RVTY?
Analyst price targets imply -13% upside for MEDP and -16.1% for RVTY, 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 RVTY?
RVTY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RVTY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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 RVTY?
RVTY 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 RVTY?
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, MEDP or RVTY?
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. 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 RVTY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.8% vs 52.1%; operating margin 21% vs 12.3%; ttm roe 110.1% vs 3.3%. MEDP leads on two measures and RVTY 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 RVTY getting stronger or weaker?
MEDP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 2026-10-14, when MEDP moved ahead of RVTY.
What would change the MEDP vs RVTY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RVTY closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to MEDP's edge; RVTY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MEDP's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MEDP and RVTY?
MEDP: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. RVTY: 3 bullish / 1 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. The most decision-relevant rule on MEDP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RVTY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MEDP and RVTY 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.