AAPL vs RELY Stock Comparison
RELY currently leads AAPL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 72 vs 62. The clearest difference is value, while AAPL has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and RELY?
RELY leads the current stock comparison as Remitly Global, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Remitly Global, Inc.
RELY leads
RELY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RELY, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Apple Inc.
Remitly Global, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RELY over AAPL, 72 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. RELY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while AAPL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. RELY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RELY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. RELY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Remitly Global, 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 RELY 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.
- Value38 vs 68RELY +30
- Risk Resilience69 vs 57AAPL +12
- Quality80 vs 89RELY +9
- Momentum65 vs 67Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RELY. RELY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; AAPL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
RELY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and RELY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RELY (Remitly Global, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
RELYRELY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RELYRELY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RELYRELY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
RELYRELY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | RELY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +26.7% | RELY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +19.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RELY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RELY | 62 vs 72 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.6% vs 9.4%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs 33%; gross margin 48.7% vs 60%; operating margin 33.2% vs 10.1% |
| Valuation | RELY | Value 38 vs 68 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 18.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | RELY | Target upside -1.7% vs 26.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and RELY 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 RELY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30RELY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RELY +10
- 62 vs 72
- 7 sessions ago
- RELY +9
- 65 vs 74
- 30 sessions ago
- RELY +15
- 60 vs 75
- 90 sessions ago
- RELY +9
- 65 vs 74
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when AAPL moved ahead of RELY.
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
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only RELY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.67%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
AAPL is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.99%, 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.
- 1AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to RELY's edge.
- 2AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3RELY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate RELY's advantage entirely.
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
Split| Metric | AAPL | RELY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 9.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 3.3% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 60% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 10.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | 33% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.03 |
Performance
RELY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AAPL | RELY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 3.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 10.9% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 75.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 41.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AAPL | RELY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 56.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 18.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 35.6% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | RELY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -26.7% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 57% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or RELY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RELY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 72 against AAPL's 62. The edge comes from value and quality. AAPL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 RELY the better buy right now?
RELY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 RELY over AAPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RELY leads Value by 30 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; RELY leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or RELY?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and +26.7% for RELY, so the Street currently favors RELY. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AAPL or RELY?
RELY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RELY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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 RELY?
RELY 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 RELY?
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 RELY?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 RELY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.7% vs 60%; operating margin 33.2% vs 10.1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs 33%. AAPL leads on two measures and RELY on one measure, 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 RELY's lead over AAPL getting stronger or weaker?
RELY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when AAPL moved ahead of RELY.
What would change the AAPL vs RELY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AAPL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to RELY's edge; AAPL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; RELY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate RELY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and RELY?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. RELY: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 RELY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL and RELY 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.