AAPL vs CTRA Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads CTRA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 49. The clearest difference is quality, while CTRA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and CTRA?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Coterra Energy Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors CTRA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Coterra Energy Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over CTRA, 62 versus 49 as of Oct 31, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CTRA holds the stronger value profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CTRA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Coterra Energy 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 AAPL and CTRA 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.
- Quality80 vs 55AAPL +25
- Risk Resilience69 vs 52AAPL +17
- Value38 vs 42CTRA +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CTRA keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and CTRA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CTRA (Coterra Energy Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44.4% against 13.6%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTRACTRA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CTRACTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
CTRACTRA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AAPL, analyst targets favor CTRA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | CTRA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +29% | CTRA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 1 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AAPL | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.99% | 17.08% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.808 | $0.400 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.030 | $0.880 |
| Years increased | 5 | — |
| No cut in window | Yes | — |
| Cohort rank | #254 | not ranked |
CTRA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.08% a year against AAPL's 4.99%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 62 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs -0.6%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 11.3%; gross margin 48.7% vs 39%; operating margin 33.2% vs 31.1% — AAPL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CTRA | Value 38 vs 42 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs -1.7%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CTRA | Target upside -1.7% vs 29% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and CTRA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +13
- 62 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +16
- 65 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +11
- 60 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +12
- 61 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.19%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
AAPL 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 -1.23%, 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.
- 1CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | -0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 27.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 39% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 31.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 11.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.23 |
Performance
AAPL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -8.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | -2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 33.5% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 23.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 26.8% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 19.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | -1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 44.4% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | CTRA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | -0.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 2.35 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -14.9% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -10.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 32% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or CTRA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against CTRA's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CTRA 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 AAPL or CTRA the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over CTRA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 25 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; CTRA leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or CTRA?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +29% for CTRA, so the Street currently favors CTRA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or CTRA?
CTRA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CTRA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, AAPL or CTRA?
CTRA 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, AAPL or CTRA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AAPL or CTRA?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 AAPL more profitable than CTRA?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 39%; operating margin 33.2% vs 31.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 11.3%.
Is AAPL's lead over CTRA getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AAPL vs CTRA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTRA closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; CTRA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 AAPL and CTRA?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CTRA: No active signals. 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and CTRA 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.