PTCT vs TMO Stock Comparison
Compare PTCT and TMO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PTCT and TMO?
PTCT leads the current stock comparison as PTC Therapeutics, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. vs Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
PTCT leads
PTCT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from TMO.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PTCT, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
PTC Therapeutics, Inc.
Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PTCT over TMO, 53 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. PTCT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while TMO holds the stronger momentum profile. PTCT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PTCT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PTCT lead: Reversed — TMO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PTCT now leads by 2.
Compare PTC Therapeutics, Inc. and Thermo Fisher Scientific 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 PTCT and TMO 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.
- Quality30%82 vs 49PTCT +33
- Momentum25%33 vs 60TMO +27
- Value30%38 vs 39Even
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 62Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PTCT. PTCT’s edge is concentrated in quality; TMO keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PTCT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PTCT and TMO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PTCT (PTC Therapeutics, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
TMO (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
PTCTPTCT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PTCTPTCT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TMOTMO on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
TMOTMO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PTCTPTCT 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 | PTCT | TMO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.2% | -2.9% | PTCT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.9% | +43.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 10 | 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 PTCT. 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 | 53 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | PTCTon balance | revenue growth 32.3% vs 9%; EPS growth 34.7% vs 5.4%; TTM ROE 21.7% vs 13.4%; gross margin 82.1% vs 40.4%; operating margin 11.5% vs 17.7% — PTCT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 38 vs 39 |
| Technicals | TMO | Price vs 50-day -8.6% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day -5.5% vs 14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | PTCT | Target upside 51.2% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PTCT and TMO 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 PTCT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5PTCT lead: Reversed — TMO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PTCT now leads by 2.
- Today
- PTCT +2
- 53 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- PTCT +2
- 53 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- TMO +1
- 52 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- PTCT +8
- 64 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when PTCT moved ahead of TMO.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.37%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
TMO 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 -2.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.75%, 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.
- 1TMO closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to PTCT's edge.
- 2TMO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PTCT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
PTCT leads on balance| Metric | PTCT | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 32.3% | 9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 34.7% | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 82.1% | 40.4% |
| Operating margin | 11.5% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.7% | 13.4% |
| Debt to equity | -4.21 | 0.81 |
Performance
TMO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PTCT | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | 3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | 29.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.3% | 22.3% |
| Year to date | -8.8% | 5.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 29.2% | 26.7% |
Technicals
TMO has the stronger structure| Metric | PTCT | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 18.6 | 34.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.6% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.5% | 14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.1% | 23.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PTCT | TMO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.72 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.8 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -27.2% | -31.4% |
| Current drawdown | -22.6% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 30.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PTCT or TMO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PTCT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 53 against TMO's 51. The edge comes from quality. TMO 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 PTCT or TMO the better buy right now?
PTCT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 PTCT over TMO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PTCT leads Quality by 33 points; TMO leads Momentum by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PTCT or TMO?
Analyst price targets imply +51.2% upside for PTCT and -2.9% for TMO, so the Street currently favors PTCT. 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, PTCT or TMO?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, PTCT or TMO?
PTCT 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, PTCT or TMO?
TMO on the Momentum factor, by 27 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, PTCT or TMO?
TMO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TMO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PTCT more profitable than TMO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.1% vs 40.4%; operating margin 11.5% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 21.7% vs 13.4%. PTCT leads on two measures and TMO 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 PTCT's lead over TMO getting stronger or weaker?
PTCT lead: Reversed — TMO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PTCT now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when PTCT moved ahead of TMO.
What would change the PTCT vs TMO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMO closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to PTCT's edge; TMO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PTCT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about PTCT and TMO?
PTCT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TMO: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 PTCT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TMO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PTCT and TMO with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.