ROIV vs SRPT Stock Comparison
Compare ROIV and SRPT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ROIV and SRPT?
ROIV leads the current stock comparison as Roivant Sciences Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Roivant Sciences Ltd. vs Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
ROIV leads
ROIV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from SRPT. Wall Street currently favors SRPT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ROIV, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Roivant Sciences Ltd.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ROIV over SRPT, 56 versus 55 as of Sep 11, 2026. ROIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while SRPT holds the stronger value profile. ROIV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SRPT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ROIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ROIV lead: Reversed — SRPT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ROIV now leads by 1.
Compare Roivant Sciences Ltd. and Sarepta Therapeutics, 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 ROIV and SRPT 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 64SRPT +30
- Risk Resilience61 vs 38ROIV +23
- Quality60 vs 46ROIV +14
- Momentum76 vs 66ROIV +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ROIV. ROIV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; SRPT keeps a meaningful value 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 -5
No new signals fired.
ROIV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ROIV and SRPT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ROIV (Roivant Sciences Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
SRPT (Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
ROIVROIV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SRPTSRPT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SRPTSRPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
ROIVROIV on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
ROIVROIV on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
SRPTSRPT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ROIV, analyst targets favor SRPT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ROIV | SRPT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2% | +14.1% | SRPT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15% | +90% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 6 | 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 ROIV. 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 | 56 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ROIVon balance | revenue growth -42.8% vs -45.1%; EPS growth -160.5% vs -101.6%; TTM ROE -6.1% vs -10%; gross margin 81.2% vs 58.6%; operating margin -181.4% vs -7.3% — ROIV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SRPT | Value 34 vs 64 |
| Technicals | ROIV | Price vs 50-day 14.4% vs 10.9%; vs 200-day 42.1% vs 6.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ROIV | Risk Resilience 61 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | SRPT | Target upside -2% vs 14.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ROIV and SRPT 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 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 ROIV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ROIV lead: Reversed — SRPT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ROIV now leads by 1.
- Today
- ROIV +1
- 56 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- SRPT +9
- 49 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- SRPT +1
- 58 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when ROIV moved ahead of SRPT.
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.
6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.35%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SRPT 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.29%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.34%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1SRPT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ROIV's edge.
- 2SRPT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ROIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ROIV leads on balance| Metric | ROIV | SRPT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -42.8% | -45.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -160.5% | -101.6% |
| Gross margin | 81.2% | 58.6% |
| Operating margin | -181.4% | -7.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.1% | -10% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.68 |
Performance
ROIV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ROIV | SRPT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 19.8% | -11.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.2% | 11.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 44.1% | 35.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 38.4% | 16.8% |
| Year to date | 88.7% | -4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 217.1% | 16.6% |
Technicals
ROIV has the stronger structure| Metric | ROIV | SRPT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.9 | 55.2 |
| ADX (14) | 20.2 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.4% | 10.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 42.1% | 6.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 75.4% | 79.3% |
Risk
ROIV is the more resilient| Metric | ROIV | SRPT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.01 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.53 | 0.55 |
| Sortino ratio | 6 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -12.8% | -39.2% |
| Current drawdown | -2.1% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.6% | 81.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -6.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ROIV or SRPT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ROIV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against SRPT's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. SRPT is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ROIV or SRPT the better buy right now?
ROIV 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ROIV over SRPT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SRPT leads Value by 30 points; ROIV leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; ROIV leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ROIV or SRPT?
Analyst price targets imply -2% upside for ROIV and +14.1% for SRPT, so the Street currently favors SRPT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ROIV. 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, ROIV or SRPT?
SRPT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SRPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, ROIV or SRPT?
SRPT 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, ROIV or SRPT?
ROIV 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, ROIV or SRPT?
ROIV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ROIV on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 ROIV more profitable than SRPT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 81.2% vs 58.6%; operating margin -181.4% vs -7.3%; ttm roe -6.1% vs -10%. ROIV leads on two measures and SRPT 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 ROIV's lead over SRPT getting stronger or weaker?
ROIV lead: Reversed — SRPT led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ROIV now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when ROIV moved ahead of SRPT.
What would change the ROIV vs SRPT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SRPT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ROIV's edge; SRPT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ROIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 ROIV and SRPT?
ROIV: 6 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SRPT: 2 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 ROIV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SRPT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ROIV and SRPT 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.