QLYS vs RIGL Stock Comparison
Compare QLYS and RIGL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between QLYS and RIGL?
RIGL leads the current stock comparison as Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Qualys, Inc. vs Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
RIGL leads
RIGL leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support RIGL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Qualys, Inc.
Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIGL over QLYS, 75 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. RIGL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. RIGL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIGL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RIGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Qualys, Inc. and Rigel Pharmaceuticals, 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 QLYS and RIGL 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.
- Momentum20 vs 69RIGL +49
- Risk Resilience42 vs 58RIGL +16
- Value52 vs 63RIGL +11
- Quality96 vs 99Even
6 of 6 evidence groups favor RIGL. RIGL’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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
RIGL's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QLYS and RIGL both carry a full feed there.
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
RIGLRIGL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIGLRIGL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RIGLRIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
RIGLRIGL on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
RIGLRIGL on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
RIGLRIGL 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 | QLYS | RIGL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.2% | +41.8% | RIGL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +88.8% | +53.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIGL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIGL | 56 vs 75 |
| Fundamentals | RIGLon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 33.8%; EPS growth 5.6% vs 97.9%; TTM ROE 37.2% vs 96.5%; gross margin 83.5% vs 91.4%; operating margin 34.6% vs 31.5% — RIGL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RIGL | Value 52 vs 63 |
| Technicals | RIGL | Price vs 50-day -9.3% vs 11.5%; vs 200-day 29.1% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | RIGL | Risk Resilience 42 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | RIGL | Target upside 1.2% vs 41.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QLYS and RIGL 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 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)
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 RIGL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RIGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RIGL +19
- 56 vs 75
- 7 sessions ago
- RIGL +15
- 62 vs 77
- 30 sessions ago
- RIGL +8
- 70 vs 78
- 90 sessions ago
- RIGL +4
- 74 vs 78
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when RIGL moved ahead of QLYS.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (32.47%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.26%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
RIGL 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 -6.99%, AIQ -4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1QLYS closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge.
- 2QLYS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
RIGL leads on balance| Metric | QLYS | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 33.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.6% | 97.9% |
| Gross margin | 83.5% | 91.4% |
| Operating margin | 34.6% | 31.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.2% | 96.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.09 | 0.09 |
Performance
RIGL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QLYS | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.7% | 12.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 46.6% | 53% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 67.2% | 73.5% |
| Year to date | 21.6% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | 15.7% |
Technicals
RIGL has the stronger structure| Metric | QLYS | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.5 | 59.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.1 | 37.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.3% | 11.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.1% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48% | 45% |
Risk
RIGL is the more resilient| Metric | QLYS | RIGL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.48 | 0.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -50.5% | -50.1% |
| Current drawdown | -17.5% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 53% | 64.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QLYS or RIGL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIGL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 75 against QLYS's 56. 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 QLYS or RIGL the better buy right now?
RIGL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 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 RIGL over QLYS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIGL leads Momentum by 49 points; RIGL leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; RIGL leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QLYS or RIGL?
Analyst price targets imply +1.2% upside for QLYS and +41.8% for RIGL, so the Street currently favors RIGL. 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, QLYS or RIGL?
RIGL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RIGL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, QLYS or RIGL?
RIGL 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, QLYS or RIGL?
RIGL on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, QLYS or RIGL?
RIGL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIGL on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 QLYS more profitable than RIGL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 83.5% vs 91.4%; operating margin 34.6% vs 31.5%; ttm roe 37.2% vs 96.5%. QLYS leads on one measure and RIGL on two measures, 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 RIGL's lead over QLYS getting stronger or weaker?
RIGL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 19 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 2026-06-05, when RIGL moved ahead of QLYS.
What would change the QLYS vs RIGL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QLYS closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIGL's edge; QLYS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; RIGL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 QLYS and RIGL?
QLYS: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RIGL: 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 QLYS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RIGL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QLYS and RIGL 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.