NUVB vs RGNX Stock Comparison
Compare NUVB and RGNX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NUVB and RGNX?
RGNX leads the current stock comparison as REGENXBIO Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nuvation Bio Inc. vs REGENXBIO Inc.
RGNX leads
RGNX leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors NUVB on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RGNX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Nuvation Bio Inc.
REGENXBIO Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RGNX over NUVB, 43 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. RGNX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while NUVB holds the stronger momentum profile. RGNX also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NUVB. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RGNX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. RGNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nuvation Bio Inc. and REGENXBIO 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 NUVB and RGNX 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.
- Value34 vs 56RGNX +22
- Momentum37 vs 25NUVB +12
- Risk Resilience43 vs 55RGNX +12
- Quality45 vs 40NUVB +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RGNX. RGNX’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; NUVB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -11
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
RGNX's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NUVB and RGNX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RGNX (REGENXBIO Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
NUVB (Nuvation Bio Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals.
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
RGNXRGNX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RGNXRGNX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RGNXRGNX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
NUVBNUVB on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
RGNXRGNX on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
NUVBNUVB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RGNX, analyst targets favor NUVB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NUVB | RGNX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +229.5% | +154% | NUVB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +10% | +92.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 5 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RGNX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RGNX | 39 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | NUVBon balance | revenue growth -61.9% vs 15.9%; EPS growth -12.6% vs 125%; TTM ROE -49.7% vs -220.1%; gross margin 93.9% vs 54.2%; operating margin -81% vs -94.1% — NUVB takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RGNX | Value 34 vs 56 |
| Technicals | NUVB | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs -20.9%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs -16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | RGNX | Risk Resilience 43 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | NUVB | Target upside 229.5% vs 154% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NUVB and RGNX 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 RGNX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RGNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RGNX +4
- 39 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- NUVB +3
- 47 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- RGNX +3
- 47 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- RGNX +3
- 47 vs 50
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when NUVB moved ahead of RGNX.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.37%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.07%)
RGNX 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 -3.34%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.35%, 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.
- 1NUVB closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGNX's edge.
- 2NUVB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RGNX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
NUVB leads on balance| Metric | NUVB | RGNX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -61.9% | 15.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -12.6% | 125% |
| Gross margin | 93.9% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | -81% | -94.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -49.7% | -220.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.99 | 0.96 |
Performance
NUVB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NUVB | RGNX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.4% | -10.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | -21.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 37.1% | 39.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.8% | -8.7% |
| Year to date | -29.9% | -40.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 79.9% | -9.7% |
Technicals
NUVB has the stronger structure| Metric | NUVB | RGNX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 30.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.2 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | -20.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | -16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.1% | 114.3% |
Risk
RGNX is the more resilient| Metric | NUVB | RGNX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 1.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.09 | 0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.8 | 0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -57.5% | -64.6% |
| Current drawdown | -34.2% | -46.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 85.9% | 93.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -8.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NUVB or RGNX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RGNX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against NUVB's 39. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. NUVB 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 NUVB or RGNX the better buy right now?
RGNX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RGNX over NUVB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RGNX leads Value by 22 points; NUVB leads Momentum by 12 points; RGNX leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NUVB or RGNX?
Analyst price targets imply +229.5% upside for NUVB and +154% for RGNX, so the Street currently favors NUVB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RGNX. 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, NUVB or RGNX?
RGNX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RGNX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, NUVB or RGNX?
RGNX 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, NUVB or RGNX?
NUVB 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, NUVB or RGNX?
RGNX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RGNX on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 NUVB more profitable than RGNX?
NUVB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 93.9% vs 54.2%; operating margin -81% vs -94.1%; ttm roe -49.7% vs -220.1%.
Is RGNX's lead over NUVB getting stronger or weaker?
RGNX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when NUVB moved ahead of RGNX.
What would change the NUVB vs RGNX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NUVB closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RGNX's edge; NUVB's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RGNX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 NUVB and RGNX?
NUVB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. RGNX: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 NUVB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RGNX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NUVB and RGNX 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.