ADP vs ANSS Stock Comparison
Compare ADP and ANSS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ADP and ANSS?
ADP leads the current stock comparison as Automatic Data Processing, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Automatic Data Processing, Inc. vs ANSYS, Inc.
ADP leads
ADP leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors ANSS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support ADP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Automatic Data Processing, Inc.
ANSYS, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ADP over ANSS, 67 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. ADP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ANSS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors ANSS. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ADP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Automatic Data Processing, Inc. and ANSYS, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ADP and ANSS 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 Resilience15%58 vs 90ANSS +32
- Value30%58 vs 27ADP +31
- Quality30%79 vs 68ADP +11
3 of 5 evidence groups favor ADP. ADP’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ANSS keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ADP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADP and ANSS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ADP (Automatic Data Processing, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ANSS (ANSYS, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
ADPADP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ADPADP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ADPADP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ANSSANSS on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.
Analyst upside
ANSSANSS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ADP, analyst targets favor ANSS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ADP | ANSS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.7% | +5.8% | ANSS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.3% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ADP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ADP | 67 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | ADPon balance | revenue growth -7.8% vs -42.8%; EPS growth -27.7% vs -81.7%; TTM ROE 70.2% vs 10%; gross margin 48.2% vs 89%; operating margin 18.6% vs 28.2% — ADP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ADP | Value 58 vs 27 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | ANSS | Risk Resilience 58 vs 90 |
| Analyst expectations | ANSS | Target upside -6.7% vs 5.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADP and ANSS 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 11 points.
- 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 ADP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ADP +11
- 67 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ADP +15
- 70 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- ADP +13
- 68 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- ADP +15
- 70 vs 55
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.53%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
No active signals
ADP 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 -2.08%, 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.
- 1ANSS closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADP's edge.
- 2ANSS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ADP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
ADP leads on balance| Metric | ADP | ANSS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.8% | -42.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -27.7% | -81.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.2% | 89% |
| Operating margin | 18.6% | 28.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 70.2% | 10% |
| Debt to equity | 0.87 | 0.14 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ADP | ANSS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.3% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.7% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.7% | — |
| Year to date | 7.9% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.1% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ADP | ANSS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.7 | — |
| ADX (14) | 36.5 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 6% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.1% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.2% | — |
Risk
ANSS is the more resilient| Metric | ADP | ANSS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.02 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.31 | — |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | — |
| Max drawdown | -37.3% | — |
| Current drawdown | -7.8% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 27.2% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADP or ANSS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ADP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 67 against ANSS's 56. The edge comes from value and quality. ANSS 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 ADP or ANSS the better buy right now?
ADP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 ADP over ANSS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ANSS leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; ADP leads Value by 31 points; ADP leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADP or ANSS?
Analyst price targets imply -6.7% upside for ADP and +5.8% for ANSS, so the Street currently favors ANSS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ADP. 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, ADP or ANSS?
ADP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ADP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, ADP or ANSS?
ADP 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, ADP or ANSS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ADP or ANSS?
ANSS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANSS on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 ADP more profitable than ANSS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.2% vs 89%; operating margin 18.6% vs 28.2%; ttm roe 70.2% vs 10%. ADP leads on one measure and ANSS 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 ADP's lead over ANSS getting stronger or weaker?
ADP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ADP vs ANSS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ANSS closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADP's edge; ANSS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; ADP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 ADP and ANSS?
ADP: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ANSS: 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 ADP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADP and ANSS 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.