PATH vs PLTR Stock Comparison
Compare PATH and PLTR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PATH and PLTR?
PATH leads the current stock comparison as UiPath Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
UiPath Inc. vs Palantir Technologies Inc.
PATH leads
PATH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PATH, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
UiPath Inc.
Palantir Technologies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PATH over PLTR, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. PATH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while PLTR holds the stronger quality profile. PATH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PATH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PATH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare UiPath Inc. and Palantir Technologies 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 PATH and PLTR 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.
- Value58 vs 24PATH +34
- Quality77 vs 97PLTR +20
- Momentum37 vs 47PLTR +10
- Risk Resilience56 vs 50PATH +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PATH. PATH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; PLTR keeps a meaningful quality 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.
PATH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PATH and PLTR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PATH (UiPath Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
PLTR (Palantir Technologies Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, 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
PLTRPLTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PATHPATH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
PLTRPLTR on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
PATHPATH on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | PATH | PLTR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.8% | +4.8% | PATH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.7% | +77% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 12 | 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 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 | Even | 58 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | PLTR | revenue growth -13% vs 18.6%; EPS growth -78.9% vs 22.2%; TTM ROE 17.3% vs 37.5%; gross margin 83% vs 84.8%; operating margin 6.2% vs 42.8% |
| Valuation | PATH | Value 58 vs 24 |
| Technicals | PLTR | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs 9.2%; vs 200-day 7.5% vs 9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | PATH | Risk Resilience 56 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | PATH | Target upside 17.8% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PATH and PLTR 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PATH +2
- 58 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PATH +5
- 63 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- PATH +5
- 70 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- PATH +8
- 67 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.08%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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 -0.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.83%, 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.
- 1PLTR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge.
- 2PLTR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PATH'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
PLTR leads on balance| Metric | PATH | PLTR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -13% | 18.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -78.9% | 22.2% |
| Gross margin | 83% | 84.8% |
| Operating margin | 6.2% | 42.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.3% | 37.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 0.02 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PATH | PLTR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.6% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.1% | -3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 29% | 27.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12% | 9.4% |
| Year to date | -15.4% | -6.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.5% | 6.3% |
Technicals
PLTR has the stronger structure| Metric | PATH | PLTR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.6 | 44.5 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | 9.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.5% | 9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 87.6% | 54.2% |
Risk
PATH is the more resilient| Metric | PATH | PLTR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.25 | 1.99 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 0.45 |
| Max drawdown | -51.4% | -48.2% |
| Current drawdown | -28.1% | -19.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.9% | 61% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PATH or PLTR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PATH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against PLTR's 56. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. PLTR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 PATH or PLTR the better buy right now?
PATH 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PATH over PLTR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PATH leads Value by 34 points; PLTR leads Quality by 20 points; PLTR leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PATH or PLTR?
Analyst price targets imply +17.8% upside for PATH and +4.8% for PLTR, 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, PATH or PLTR?
PATH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PATH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, PATH or PLTR?
PLTR 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, PATH or PLTR?
PLTR on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, PATH or PLTR?
PATH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PATH on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 PATH more profitable than PLTR?
PLTR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 83% vs 84.8%; operating margin 6.2% vs 42.8%; ttm roe 17.3% vs 37.5%.
Is PATH's lead over PLTR getting stronger or weaker?
PATH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PATH vs PLTR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PLTR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge; PLTR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PATH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about PATH and PLTR?
PATH: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PLTR: 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 PATH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PLTR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PATH and PLTR 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.