MRCY vs RCAT Stock Comparison
Compare MRCY and RCAT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MRCY and RCAT?
RCAT leads the current stock comparison as Red Cat Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mercury Systems, Inc. vs Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
RCAT leads
RCAT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support RCAT, and its lead is narrowing.
Mercury Systems, Inc.
Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RCAT over MRCY, 35 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. RCAT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MRCY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RCAT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RCAT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. RCAT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mercury Systems, Inc. and Red Cat Holdings, 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 MRCY and RCAT 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.
- Value27 vs 34RCAT +7
- Momentum21 vs 27RCAT +6
- Risk Resilience57 vs 52MRCY +5
- Quality37 vs 33MRCY +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor RCAT. RCAT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MRCY keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
RCAT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MRCY and RCAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RCAT (Red Cat Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MRCY (Mercury Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
RCATRCAT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MRCYMRCY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RCATRCAT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
RCATRCAT on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
MRCYMRCY on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
RCATRCAT 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 | MRCY | RCAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.3% | +111.1% | RCAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.7% | +95.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 5 | 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 RCAT. 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 | 33 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | MRCYon balance | revenue growth 22.9% vs 30.5%; EPS growth 127.8% vs -18.2%; TTM ROE -2% vs -35%; gross margin 26.7% vs 8.6% — MRCY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RCAT | Value 27 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MRCY | Price vs 50-day -19.6% vs -10%; vs 200-day -10.8% vs -26.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MRCY | Risk Resilience 57 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | RCAT | Target upside 40.3% vs 111.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MRCY and RCAT 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)
- 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 RCAT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RCAT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RCAT +2
- 33 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- RCAT +2
- 32 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- RCAT +6
- 40 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- MRCY +8
- 42 vs 34
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when RCAT moved ahead of MRCY.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.42%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.41%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
MRCY 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 +0.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.49%, 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.
- 1MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to RCAT's edge.
- 2MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3RCAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate RCAT'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
MRCY leads on balance| Metric | MRCY | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 22.9% | 30.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 127.8% | -18.2% |
| Gross margin | 26.7% | 8.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.5% | -161.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2% | -35% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 0.05 |
Performance
MRCY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MRCY | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.6% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26% | -21.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.7% | -25.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.5% | -50% |
| Year to date | 10.2% | 1.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.1% | -8.9% |
Technicals
MRCY has the stronger structure| Metric | MRCY | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.1 | 32.3 |
| ADX (14) | 29 | 14.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.6% | -10% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.8% | -26.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.5% | 68.7% |
Risk
MRCY is the more resilient| Metric | MRCY | RCAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.31 | 3.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.5 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -36.3% | -61% |
| Current drawdown | -36.3% | -53.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 58% | 114.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -9.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MRCY or RCAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RCAT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 35 against MRCY's 33. The edge comes from value and momentum. MRCY is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 MRCY or RCAT the better buy right now?
RCAT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 RCAT over MRCY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RCAT leads Value by 7 points; RCAT leads Momentum by 6 points; MRCY leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MRCY or RCAT?
Analyst price targets imply +40.3% upside for MRCY and +111.1% for RCAT, so the Street currently favors RCAT. 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, MRCY or RCAT?
RCAT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RCAT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, MRCY or RCAT?
MRCY 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, MRCY or RCAT?
RCAT 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, MRCY or RCAT?
MRCY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MRCY on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 MRCY more profitable than RCAT?
MRCY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 26.7% vs 8.6%; operating margin 0.5% vs -161.1%; ttm roe -2% vs -35%.
Is RCAT's lead over MRCY getting stronger or weaker?
RCAT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-10, when RCAT moved ahead of MRCY.
What would change the MRCY vs RCAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRCY closes the Value gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to RCAT's edge; MRCY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; RCAT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate RCAT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MRCY and RCAT?
MRCY: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RCAT: 0 bullish / 3 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 MRCY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RCAT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MRCY and RCAT 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.