AAPL vs NGD Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads NGD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 61. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while NGD has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and NGD?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs New Gold Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from NGD. Wall Street currently favors NGD 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.
New Gold Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over NGD, 62 versus 61 as of Oct 31, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while NGD holds the stronger quality profile. AAPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NGD. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. AAPL lead: Reversed — NGD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 1.
Compare Apple Inc. and New Gold 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 NGD 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 Resilience69 vs 52AAPL +17
- Quality80 vs 90NGD +10
- Value38 vs 36Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; NGD keeps a meaningful quality 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 NGD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
NGD (New Gold Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 69.9% 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
NGDNGD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
NGDNGD 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 NGD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AAPL | NGD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +40.4% | NGD 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.
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 | Even | 62 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | NGDon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 10.5%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 64.8%; gross margin 48.7% vs 51.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 44.8% — NGD takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 38 vs 36 |
| Technicals | AAPL | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs -18.6%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 28% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | NGD | Target upside -1.7% vs 40.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and NGD 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 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 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: Reversed — NGD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 1.
- Today
- AAPL +1
- 62 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +4
- 65 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- NGD +1
- 60 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +14
- 61 vs 47
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when NGD moved ahead of AAPL.
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.
- 1NGD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2NGD 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
NGD leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 3.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 51.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 44.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 64.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.21 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -15.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | -14.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 10.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 41.2% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 4.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 170.2% |
Technicals
AAPL has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 22.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | -18.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 28% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 69.9% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 1.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.44 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -32.3% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -32.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 72.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -7.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or NGD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against NGD's 61. The edge comes from risk resilience. NGD is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 NGD the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 AAPL over NGD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; NGD leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or NGD?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +40.4% for NGD, so the Street currently favors NGD. 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 NGD?
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 NGD?
NGD 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 NGD?
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 NGD?
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 NGD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 51.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 44.8%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 64.8%. AAPL leads on one measure and NGD 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 NGD getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Reversed — NGD led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when NGD moved ahead of AAPL.
What would change the AAPL vs NGD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NGD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; NGD 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 NGD?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. NGD: 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 NGD 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.