ADT vs SON Stock Comparison
Compare ADT and SON across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ADT and SON?
ADT leads the current stock comparison as ADT Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ADT Inc. vs Sonoco Products Company
ADT leads
ADT leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SON on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ADT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ADT Inc.
Sonoco Products Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ADT over SON, 49 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. ADT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. ADT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SON. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ADT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. ADT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ADT Inc. and Sonoco Products Company 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 ADT and SON 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 Resilience55 vs 41ADT +14
- Value73 vs 67ADT +6
- Momentum26 vs 23Even
- Quality40 vs 38Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ADT. ADT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
ADT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADT and SON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ADT (ADT Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
SON (Sonoco Products Company): 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
ADTADT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SONSON on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ADTADT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ADTADT on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
SONSON on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ADT, analyst targets favor SON. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ADT | SON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.1% | +29.6% | SON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +3.3% | +8.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ADT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ADT | 49 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | SONon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs 12.5%; EPS growth -4.8% vs 54.4%; TTM ROE 16.8% vs 18.3%; gross margin 51.4% vs 20.8%; operating margin 25% vs 8.9% — SON takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ADT | Value 73 vs 67 |
| Technicals | ADT | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs -14.8%; vs 200-day -4.2% vs -5.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ADT | Risk Resilience 55 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | SON | Target upside 8.1% vs 29.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADT and SON 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 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ADT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ADT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ADT +6
- 49 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- ADT +17
- 62 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- ADT +1
- 56 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- SON +1
- 57 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when ADT moved ahead of SON.
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.18%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.28%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ADT 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 +0.57%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.22%, 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.
- 1SON closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADT's edge.
- 2SON's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ADT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
SON leads on balance| Metric | ADT | SON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.8% | 54.4% |
| Gross margin | 51.4% | 20.8% |
| Operating margin | 25% | 8.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.8% | 18.3% |
| Debt to equity | 2.21 | 1.31 |
Performance
ADT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ADT | SON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -11.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -16.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.6% | -1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.9% | -7% |
| Year to date | -13.1% | 11% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.7% | 4.9% |
Technicals
ADT has the stronger structure| Metric | ADT | SON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.6 | 15.5 |
| ADX (14) | 19.7 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | -14.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.2% | -5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.3% | 29% |
Risk
ADT is the more resilient| Metric | ADT | SON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.72 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -28.8% | -20.1% |
| Current drawdown | -20.8% | -20% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.2% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADT or SON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ADT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against SON's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 ADT or SON the better buy right now?
ADT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has swung materially session to session. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ADT over SON?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ADT leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; ADT leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADT or SON?
Analyst price targets imply +8.1% upside for ADT and +29.6% for SON, so the Street currently favors SON. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ADT. 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, ADT or SON?
ADT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ADT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, ADT or SON?
SON 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, ADT or SON?
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, ADT or SON?
ADT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ADT on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 ADT more profitable than SON?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.4% vs 20.8%; operating margin 25% vs 8.9%; ttm roe 16.8% vs 18.3%. ADT leads on two measures and SON 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 ADT's lead over SON getting stronger or weaker?
ADT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when ADT moved ahead of SON.
What would change the ADT vs SON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SON closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADT's edge; SON's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ADT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 ADT and SON?
ADT: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. SON: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 ADT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SON it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ADT and SON 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.