AEO vs WHR Stock Comparison
AEO currently leads WHR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 35. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AEO and WHR?
AEO leads the current stock comparison as American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. vs Whirlpool Corporation
AEO leads
AEO leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors WHR on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AEO.
American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.
Whirlpool Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEO over WHR, 55 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. AEO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. AEO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WHR. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. AEO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions. AEO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. and Whirlpool 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 AEO and WHR 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.
- Quality46 vs 12AEO +34
- Momentum55 vs 28AEO +27
- Risk Resilience50 vs 41AEO +9
- Value68 vs 62AEO +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AEO. AEO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AEO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEO and WHR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEO (American Eagle Outfitters, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WHR (Whirlpool Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 39.9% against 32.7%.
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
AEOAEO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WHRWHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AEOAEO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
AEOAEO on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
AEOAEO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
WHRWHR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AEO, analyst targets favor WHR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEO | WHR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.8% | +48.7% | WHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.3% | +83.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 6 | 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 | AEO | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.70% | 1.79% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.275 | $4.850 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.500 | $5.300 |
| Years increased | 2 | 2 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
AEO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.70% a year against WHR's 1.79%. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AEO | 55 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | AEOon balance | revenue growth -32.1% vs 7.5%; EPS growth -73.1% vs 180.4%; TTM ROE 17.2% vs 5.8%; gross margin 34.8% vs 13.5%; operating margin 7.6% vs 3.6% — AEO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AEO | Value 68 vs 62 |
| Technicals | AEO | Price vs 50-day 3.6% vs -23.7%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -44.7% |
| Risk Resilience | AEO | Risk Resilience 50 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WHR | Target upside 10.8% vs 48.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEO and WHR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 AEO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AEO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEO +20
- 55 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- AEO +23
- 58 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- AEO +22
- 56 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- AEO +6
- 48 vs 42
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only AEO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WHR
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
WHR 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 -2.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.39%, 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.
- 1WHR closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEO's edge.
- 2WHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AEO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
AEO leads on balance| Metric | AEO | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -32.1% | 7.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -73.1% | 180.4% |
| Gross margin | 34.8% | 13.5% |
| Operating margin | 7.6% | 3.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.2% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 2.05 |
Performance
AEO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AEO | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.9% | -16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.1% | -24.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | -50.7% |
| Year to date | -32.5% | -61.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | -61.2% |
Technicals
AEO has the stronger structure| Metric | AEO | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.5 | 32.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 48.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.6% | -23.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -44.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.7% | 39.9% |
Risk
AEO is the more resilient| Metric | AEO | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.71 | -2.54 |
| Max drawdown | -48.5% | -71.5% |
| Current drawdown | -36.8% | -69.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.7% | 49.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEO or WHR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against WHR's 35. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 AEO or WHR the better buy right now?
AEO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AEO over WHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEO leads Quality by 34 points; AEO leads Momentum by 27 points; AEO leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. AEO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WHR simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AEO or WHR?
Analyst price targets imply +10.8% upside for AEO and +48.7% for WHR, so the Street currently favors WHR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AEO. 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, AEO or WHR?
AEO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AEO 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, AEO or WHR?
WHR 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, AEO or WHR?
AEO on the Momentum factor, by 27 points. 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, AEO or WHR?
AEO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AEO more profitable than WHR?
AEO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.8% vs 13.5%; operating margin 7.6% vs 3.6%; ttm roe 17.2% vs 5.8%.
Is AEO's lead over WHR getting stronger or weaker?
AEO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AEO vs WHR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WHR closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEO's edge; WHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AEO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 AEO and WHR?
AEO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. WHR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 AEO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WHR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AEO and WHR 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.