NTRA vs TECH Stock Comparison
TECH currently leads NTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 48. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NTRA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between NTRA and TECH?
TECH leads the current stock comparison as Bio-Techne Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Natera, Inc. vs Bio-Techne Corporation
TECH leads
TECH leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from NTRA.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TECH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Natera, Inc.
Bio-Techne Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TECH over NTRA, 58 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. TECH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while NTRA holds the stronger value profile. TECH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TECH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TECH lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TECH now leads by 10.
Compare Natera, Inc. and Bio-Techne Corporation 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 NTRA and TECH 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.
- Risk Resilience57 vs 91TECH +34
- Momentum47 vs 66TECH +19
- Quality57 vs 66TECH +9
- Value34 vs 26NTRA +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TECH. TECH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; NTRA 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
TECH's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NTRA and TECH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TECH (Bio-Techne Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
NTRA (Natera, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 36.7% against 1.9%.
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
TECHTECH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NTRANTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NTRANTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
TECHTECH on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
TECHTECH on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
TECHTECH 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 | NTRA | TECH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -19.6% | -11.8% | TECH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +76.7% | +37.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TECH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TECH | 48 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 8.1% vs 3.1%; EPS growth 21.7% vs 6.1%; TTM ROE -11.7% vs 8.9%; gross margin 65.3% vs 65.8%; operating margin -10.7% vs 20.7% |
| Valuation | NTRA | Value 34 vs 26 |
| Technicals | NTRA | Price vs 50-day 14.4% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 56.6% vs 15.4% |
| Risk Resilience | TECH | Risk Resilience 57 vs 91 |
| Analyst expectations | TECH | Target upside -19.6% vs -11.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NTRA and TECH 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 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 TECH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TECH lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TECH now leads by 10.
- Today
- TECH +10
- 48 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- TECH +9
- 47 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- NTRA +2
- 60 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- NTRA +1
- 58 vs 57
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 when NTRA moved ahead of TECH.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTRA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.06%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TECH
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.21%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
TECH 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 up over the latest session (price +1.84%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.08%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to TECH's edge.
- 2NTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TECH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
Split| Metric | NTRA | TECH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.7% | 6.1% |
| Gross margin | 65.3% | 65.8% |
| Operating margin | -10.7% | 20.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -11.7% | 8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 0.14 |
Performance
NTRA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | NTRA | TECH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.6% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.8% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 53.6% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 97.6% | 21.6% |
| Year to date | 77.2% | 23.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 124.8% | 17.8% |
Technicals
NTRA has the stronger structure| Metric | NTRA | TECH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 41.5 | 37.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.4% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 56.6% | 15.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.7% | 1.9% |
Risk
TECH is the more resilient| Metric | NTRA | TECH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 0.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.82 | 0.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.95 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -28.2% | -39.3% |
| Current drawdown | -4.6% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.5% | 43.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NTRA or TECH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TECH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against NTRA's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. NTRA 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 NTRA or TECH the better buy right now?
TECH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TECH over NTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TECH leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; TECH leads Momentum by 19 points; TECH leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NTRA or TECH?
Analyst price targets imply -19.6% upside for NTRA and -11.8% for TECH, so the Street currently favors TECH. 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, NTRA or TECH?
NTRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, NTRA or TECH?
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, NTRA or TECH?
TECH on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, NTRA or TECH?
TECH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TECH on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 NTRA more profitable than TECH?
TECH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.3% vs 65.8%; operating margin -10.7% vs 20.7%; ttm roe -11.7% vs 8.9%.
Is TECH's lead over NTRA getting stronger or weaker?
TECH lead: Reversed — NTRA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TECH now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-01, when NTRA moved ahead of TECH.
What would change the NTRA vs TECH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTRA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to TECH's edge; NTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; TECH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 NTRA and TECH?
NTRA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TECH: 4 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 NTRA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TECH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NTRA and TECH 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.