AAL vs CHRW Stock Comparison
Compare AAL and CHRW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AAL and CHRW?
CHRW leads the current stock comparison as C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Airlines Group Inc. vs C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
CHRW leads
CHRW leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from AAL. Wall Street currently favors AAL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CHRW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
American Airlines Group Inc.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHRW over AAL, 55 versus 45 as of Sep 6, 2026. CHRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CHRW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AAL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CHRW lead: Reversed — AAL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHRW now leads by 10.
Compare American Airlines Group Inc. and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, 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 AAL and CHRW 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.
- Momentum25%25 vs 52CHRW +27
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 61CHRW +22
- Quality30%48 vs 52CHRW +4
- Value30%62 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CHRW. CHRW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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.
CHRW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAL and CHRW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHRW (C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AAL (American Airlines Group Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 33.5% against 27.8%.
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
CHRWCHRW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
AALAAL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CHRWCHRW on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
CHRWCHRW on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
AALAAL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHRW, analyst targets favor AAL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAL | CHRW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +43.3% | +35% | AAL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.8% | +73.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 14 | 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 CHRW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHRW | 45 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CHRWon balance | revenue growth 20.3% vs 23%; EPS growth 119% vs 28.5%; TTM ROE 8.3% vs 36%; gross margin 21% vs 10.1%; operating margin 1.7% vs 4.9% — CHRW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 59 |
| Technicals | AAL | Price vs 50-day -14% vs -12.2%; vs 200-day -5.7% vs -14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CHRW | Risk Resilience 39 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AAL | Target upside 43.3% vs 35% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAL and CHRW 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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 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 CHRW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CHRW lead: Reversed — AAL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHRW now leads by 10.
- Today
- CHRW +10
- 45 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CHRW +12
- 44 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- AAL +2
- 48 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- CHRW +2
- 56 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when CHRW moved ahead of AAL.
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 (9.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.70%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CHRW 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 +1.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.65%, 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.
- 1AAL closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge.
- 2AAL's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
CHRW leads on balance| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 20.3% | 23% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 119% | 28.5% |
| Gross margin | 21% | 10.1% |
| Operating margin | 1.7% | 4.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.3% | 36% |
| Debt to equity | -9 | 1.21 |
Performance
CHRW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.6% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.7% | -19.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.4% | -17.8% |
| Year to date | -14.4% | -8.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.3% | 14.6% |
Technicals
AAL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.6 | 56.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.9 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14% | -12.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.7% | -14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.5% | 27.8% |
Risk
CHRW is the more resilient| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.82 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.35 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -27.7% | -29.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.8% | 44.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAL or CHRW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHRW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 55 against AAL's 45. 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 AAL or CHRW the better buy right now?
CHRW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHRW over AAL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CHRW leads Momentum by 27 points; CHRW leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; CHRW leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAL or CHRW?
Analyst price targets imply +43.3% upside for AAL and +35% for CHRW, so the Street currently favors AAL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHRW. 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, AAL or CHRW?
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, AAL or CHRW?
AAL 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, AAL or CHRW?
CHRW 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, AAL or CHRW?
CHRW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHRW on Risk Resilience, by 22 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAL more profitable than CHRW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21% vs 10.1%; operating margin 1.7% vs 4.9%; ttm roe 8.3% vs 36%. AAL leads on one measure and CHRW 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 CHRW's lead over AAL getting stronger or weaker?
CHRW lead: Reversed — AAL led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHRW now leads by 10. 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 2026-08-19, when CHRW moved ahead of AAL.
What would change the AAL vs CHRW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AAL closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge; AAL's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 AAL and CHRW?
AAL: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CHRW: 1 bullish / 2 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 AAL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CHRW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAL and CHRW 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.