AAPL vs XLK Stock Comparison
Apple Inc. vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from XLK.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support AAPL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over XLK, 66 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. AAPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. AAPL lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 10.
Compare Apple Inc. and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AAPL and XLK 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.
- Momentum25%85 vs 55AAPL +30
- Quality30%80 vs 74AAPL +6
- Risk Resilience15%65 vs 61AAPL +4
- Value30%38 vs 37Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and XLK both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AAPLAAPL on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AAPL | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +47.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | 66 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 38 vs 37 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 15.7% vs 16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 65 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and XLK 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 10 points.
- Only 2 of 4 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 swung materially session to session. (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 22 – Sep 3AAPL lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 10.
- Today
- AAPL +10
- 66 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +9
- 65 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +7
- 52 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +4
- 55 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when AAPL moved ahead of XLK.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.81%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.00%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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 -2.51%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.7%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
Split| Metric | AAPL | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | — |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | — |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AAPL | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.8 | 42.9 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 11.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.7% | 16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 21.4% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.68 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.25 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.69 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -6.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 66 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 XLK the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AAPL over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AAPL leads Momentum by 30 points; AAPL leads Quality by 6 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +2.6% upside for AAPL and not covered for XLK. 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 XLK?
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 XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 XLK?
AAPL on the Momentum factor, by 30 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 XLK?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. 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 XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is AAPL's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AAPL now leads by 10. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when AAPL moved ahead of XLK.
What would change the AAPL vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 XLK?
AAPL: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 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 XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.