AKAM vs CDW Stock Comparison
Compare AKAM and CDW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AKAM and CDW?
CDW leads the current stock comparison as CDW Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Akamai Technologies, Inc. vs CDW Corporation
CDW leads
CDW leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AKAM on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CDW, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
CDW Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CDW over AKAM, 64 versus 42 as of Sep 6, 2026. CDW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. CDW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AKAM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CDW today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CDW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Akamai Technologies, Inc. and CDW Corporation 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 AKAM and CDW 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%24 vs 81CDW +57
- Quality30%34 vs 50CDW +16
- Risk Resilience15%36 vs 46CDW +10
- Value30%69 vs 72Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CDW. CDW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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.
CDW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AKAM and CDW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CDW (CDW Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
AKAM (Akamai Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
CDWCDW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CDWCDW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CDWCDW on the Momentum factor, by 57 points.
Lower downside
CDWCDW on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
AKAMAKAM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CDW, analyst targets favor AKAM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AKAM | CDW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.3% | -2.5% | AKAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.7% | +32.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 5 | 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 CDW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CDW | 42 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | CDWon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs 15.7%; EPS growth -24.7% vs 18.7%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 42.6%; gross margin 56.4% vs 21.4%; operating margin 11.8% vs 7.1% — CDW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 69 vs 72 |
| Technicals | CDW | Price vs 50-day -9.3% vs 8.9%; vs 200-day -3.8% vs 15.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CDW | Risk Resilience 36 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | AKAM | Target upside 49.3% vs -2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AKAM and CDW 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CDW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CDW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CDW +22
- 42 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- CDW +20
- 43 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- CDW +3
- 55 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- CDW +16
- 43 vs 59
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when CDW moved ahead of AKAM.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.83%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.46%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
AKAM 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 -1.2%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1%, 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.
- 1AKAM closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to CDW's edge.
- 2AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CDW's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CDW leads on balance| Metric | AKAM | CDW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 15.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.7% | 18.7% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 21.4% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 42.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 2.44 |
Performance
CDW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AKAM | CDW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | 3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | 12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -29.5% | 14.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.3% | 21.8% |
| Year to date | 20.6% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35.7% | -6.7% |
Technicals
CDW has the stronger structure| Metric | AKAM | CDW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 68.1 |
| ADX (14) | 27.9 | 20.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.3% | 8.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.8% | 15.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.8% | 45.3% |
Risk
CDW is the more resilient| Metric | AKAM | CDW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 0.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | -0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | -0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -34.8% | -41.9% |
| Current drawdown | -34.7% | -10.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 45% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AKAM or CDW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CDW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 64 against AKAM's 42. 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 AKAM or CDW the better buy right now?
CDW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 CDW over AKAM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CDW leads Momentum by 57 points; CDW leads Quality by 16 points; CDW leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AKAM or CDW?
Analyst price targets imply +49.3% upside for AKAM and -2.5% for CDW, so the Street currently favors AKAM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CDW. 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, AKAM or CDW?
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, AKAM or CDW?
CDW 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, AKAM or CDW?
CDW on the Momentum factor, by 57 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, AKAM or CDW?
CDW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CDW on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 AKAM more profitable than CDW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.4% vs 21.4%; operating margin 11.8% vs 7.1%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 42.6%. AKAM leads on two measures and CDW 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 CDW's lead over AKAM getting stronger or weaker?
CDW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 22 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when CDW moved ahead of AKAM.
What would change the AKAM vs CDW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AKAM closes the Momentum gap — currently 57 points behind, the largest single contributor to CDW's edge; AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CDW's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 AKAM and CDW?
AKAM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CDW: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 AKAM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CDW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AKAM and CDW 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.