AAPL vs META Stock Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Meta Platforms, Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from META. Wall Street currently favors META on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over META, 67 versus 58 as of Sep 2, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors META. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AAPL lead: Reversed — META led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 9.
Compare Apple Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%83 vs 51AAPL +32
- Quality30%80 vs 83Even
- Value30%41 vs 38Even
- Risk Resilience15%65 vs 62Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-02, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-01.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
AAPL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and META both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 29.6% against 18.9%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
AAPLAAPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
METAMETA 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 META. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | META | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1% | +24.3% | META has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | +39.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 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
2 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 | 67 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | METAon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 8%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 29.7%; gross margin 48.7% vs 81.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs 38.1% — META takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 41 vs 38 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.8% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 14.9% vs -7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 65 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | META | Target upside 1% vs 24.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and META 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 9 points.
- Only 2 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)
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 · Apr 21 – Sep 2AAPL lead: Reversed — META led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 9.
- Today
- AAPL +9
- 67 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +9
- 65 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- META +5
- 51 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when AAPL moved ahead of META.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.55%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.06%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.47%, 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.
- 1META closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2META's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
META leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | META |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | -41.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 81.7% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 38.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 29.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.43 |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | META |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.4 | 49.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.8 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.8% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.9% | -7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.9% | 29.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AAPL | META |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.69 | 1.4 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.31 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.8 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -32.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.4% | -25.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 38.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or META?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 67 against META's 58. The edge comes from 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 AAPL or META the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over META?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AAPL leads Momentum by 32 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or META?
Analyst price targets imply +1% upside for AAPL and +24.3% for META, so the Street currently favors META. 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 META?
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, AAPL or META?
AAPL 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 META?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, AAPL or META?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AAPL more profitable than META?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 81.7%; operating margin 33.2% vs 38.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 29.7%. AAPL leads on one measure and META 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 AAPL's lead over META getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Reversed — META led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 9. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-21 and 2026-09-02. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when AAPL moved ahead of META.
What would change the AAPL vs META verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: META closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; META's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 AAPL and META?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. META: 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On META it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and META 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.