ACN vs IBM Stock Comparison
ACN currently leads IBM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 67. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between ACN and IBM?
ACN leads the current stock comparison as Accenture plc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Accenture plc vs International Business Machines Corporation
ACN leads
ACN leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors IBM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ACN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Accenture plc
International Business Machines Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACN over IBM, 71 versus 67 as of Oct 31, 2026. ACN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. ACN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IBM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ACN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Accenture plc and International Business Machines Corporation 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 ACN and IBM 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.
- Value72 vs 65ACN +7
- Quality65 vs 61ACN +4
- Risk Resilience50 vs 52Even
- Momentum88 vs 87Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ACN. ACN’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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 -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ACN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACN and IBM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACN (Accenture plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
IBM (International Business Machines Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
ACNACN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACNACN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACNACN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
IBMIBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IBMIBM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACN, analyst targets favor IBM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACN | IBM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -19% | +2.1% | IBM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +70.8% | +66.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 15 | 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 | ACN | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 13.10% | 1.52% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.280 | $6.224 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.070 | $6.710 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #49 | #340 |
ACN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 13.10% a year against IBM's 1.52%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACN | 71 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | IBM | TTM ROE 25% vs 32.9%; gross margin 32% vs 58%; operating margin 14.9% vs 18% |
| Valuation | ACN | Value 72 vs 65 |
| Technicals | ACN | Price vs 50-day 29.2% vs 10.1%; vs 200-day 27% vs 1.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | IBM | Target upside -19% vs 2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACN and IBM 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ACN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ACN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACN +4
- 71 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- ACN +4
- 72 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- ACN +14
- 65 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ACN +9
- 65 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when ACN moved ahead of IBM.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ACN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.31%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.28%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IBM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ACN 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.46%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1IBM closes the Value gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACN's edge.
- 2IBM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ACN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate ACN'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
IBM leads on balance| Metric | ACN | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.7% | -0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 29.1% | 0.9% |
| Gross margin | 32% | 58% |
| Operating margin | 14.9% | 18% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25% | 32.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 1.89 |
Performance
ACN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ACN | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 32.7% | 15.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 49.1% | 14.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35% | 11.5% |
| Year to date | -9.3% | -14.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.7% | -17.6% |
Technicals
ACN has the stronger structure| Metric | ACN | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.7 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 39 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 29.2% | 10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27% | 1.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 76.3% | 24.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ACN | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 0.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.09 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.13 | -0.29 |
| Max drawdown | -56.9% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -15.6% | -23.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.7% | 48.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACN or IBM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 71 against IBM's 67. The edge comes from value 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 ACN or IBM the better buy right now?
ACN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ACN over IBM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ACN leads Value by 7 points; ACN leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACN or IBM?
Analyst price targets imply -19% upside for ACN and +2.1% for IBM, so the Street currently favors IBM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACN. 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, ACN or IBM?
ACN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, ACN or IBM?
ACN 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, ACN or IBM?
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, ACN or IBM?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ACN more profitable than IBM?
IBM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32% vs 58%; operating margin 14.9% vs 18%; ttm roe 25% vs 32.9%.
Is ACN's lead over IBM getting stronger or weaker?
ACN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when ACN moved ahead of IBM.
What would change the ACN vs IBM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IBM closes the Value gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACN's edge; IBM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ACN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate ACN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ACN and IBM?
ACN: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IBM: 2 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 ACN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IBM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ACN and IBM 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.