AAL vs CHRW Stock Comparison
CHRW currently leads AAL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 45. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
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 risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Airlines Group Inc. vs C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
CHRW leads
CHRW leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AAL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CHRW, and its lead is widening.
American Airlines Group Inc.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHRW over AAL, 50 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. CHRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
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
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
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.
- Risk Resilience34 vs 49CHRW +15
- Momentum26 vs 36CHRW +10
- Quality48 vs 52CHRW +4
- Value62 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CHRW. CHRW’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CHRW's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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 risk resilience and momentum.
AAL (American Airlines Group Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, 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
CHRWCHRW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AALAAL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CHRWCHRW on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
CHRWCHRW on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | +42.4% | +39.5% | AAL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +80.4% | +74.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 16 | 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 50 |
| 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 -7.8% vs -4%; vs 200-day -11.3% vs -17.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CHRW | Risk Resilience 34 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | AAL | Target upside 42.4% vs 39.5% |
✓ 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 narrow at 5 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 widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHRW +5
- 45 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- CHRW +5
- 45 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CHRW +1
- 52 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- AAL +1
- 47 vs 46
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
Only AAL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +1.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.27%, 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.
- 1AAL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge.
- 2AAL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CHRW starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
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) | -3.1% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.1% | -32.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.9% | -23.5% |
| Year to date | -21% | -12.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.9% | 11.6% |
Technicals
AAL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 43.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.8% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.3% | -17.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 52.8% |
Risk
CHRW is the more resilient| Metric | AAL | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.94 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.2 | 0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.36 | 0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -35.5% |
| Current drawdown | -33.3% | -32.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.2% | 46.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against AAL's 45. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 Oct 21, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHRW over AAL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHRW leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; CHRW leads Momentum by 10 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 +42.4% upside for AAL and +39.5% 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 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, 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 15 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 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge; AAL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CHRW starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 AAL and CHRW?
AAL: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. CHRW: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on AAL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHRW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAL and CHRW 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.