AMGN vs PATH Stock Comparison
Compare AMGN and PATH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMGN and PATH?
PATH leads the current stock comparison as UiPath Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amgen Inc. vs UiPath Inc.
PATH leads
PATH leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support PATH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amgen Inc.
UiPath Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PATH over AMGN, 58 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. PATH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. PATH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PATH today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PATH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions. PATH leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Amgen Inc. and UiPath 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 AMGN and PATH 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.
- Momentum15 vs 37PATH +22
- Risk Resilience39 vs 56PATH +17
- Value44 vs 58PATH +14
- Quality70 vs 77PATH +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor PATH. PATH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
PATH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMGN and PATH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PATH (UiPath Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AMGN (Amgen Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
PATHPATH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMGNAMGN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PATHPATH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
PATHPATH on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
PATHPATH on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
PATHPATH 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 | AMGN | PATH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.2% | +17.8% | PATH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.1% | +61.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PATH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PATH | 44 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | AMGNon balance | revenue growth 16.7% vs -13%; EPS growth 30.6% vs -78.9%; TTM ROE 89.3% vs 17.3%; gross margin 72.7% vs 83%; operating margin 33.2% vs 6.2% — AMGN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PATH | Value 44 vs 58 |
| Technicals | PATH | Price vs 50-day -5.4% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | PATH | Risk Resilience 39 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | PATH | Target upside -0.2% vs 17.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMGN and PATH and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 PATH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PATH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PATH +14
- 44 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- PATH +5
- 58 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- PATH +7
- 63 vs 70
- 90 sessions ago
- PATH +6
- 61 vs 67
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when PATH moved ahead of AMGN.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.03%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
PATH 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.87%, 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.
- 1AMGN closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge.
- 2AMGN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
AMGN leads on balance| Metric | AMGN | PATH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.7% | -13% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.6% | -78.9% |
| Gross margin | 72.7% | 83% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 89.3% | 17.3% |
| Debt to equity | 4.9 | 0.04 |
Performance
AMGN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMGN | PATH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.5% | -16.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.1% | -9.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.2% | 29% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.3% | 12% |
| Year to date | 16.9% | -15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 36.5% | 17.5% |
Technicals
PATH has the stronger structure| Metric | AMGN | PATH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 38.6 |
| ADX (14) | 40 | 30.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.4% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.9% | 87.6% |
Risk
PATH is the more resilient| Metric | AMGN | PATH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 1.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.64 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -51.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13.9% | -28.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.6% | 69.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -6.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMGN or PATH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PATH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against AMGN's 44. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 AMGN or PATH the better buy right now?
PATH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PATH over AMGN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PATH leads Momentum by 22 points; PATH leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; PATH leads Value by 14 points. PATH leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by AMGN simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AMGN or PATH?
Analyst price targets imply -0.2% upside for AMGN and +17.8% for PATH, so the Street currently favors PATH. 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, AMGN or PATH?
PATH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PATH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, AMGN or PATH?
AMGN 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, AMGN or PATH?
PATH on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, AMGN or PATH?
PATH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PATH on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 AMGN more profitable than PATH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.7% vs 83%; operating margin 33.2% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 89.3% vs 17.3%. AMGN leads on two measures and PATH 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 PATH's lead over AMGN getting stronger or weaker?
PATH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 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 2026-07-27, when PATH moved ahead of AMGN.
What would change the AMGN vs PATH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMGN closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge; AMGN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 AMGN and PATH?
AMGN: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. PATH: 2 bullish / 2 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 AMGN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PATH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMGN and PATH 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.