AKAM vs WIT Stock Comparison
Compare AKAM and WIT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AKAM and WIT?
WIT leads the current stock comparison as Wipro Limited, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Akamai Technologies, Inc. vs Wipro Limited
WIT leads
WIT leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WIT, and its lead is widening.
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Wipro Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WIT over AKAM, 53 versus 42 as of Sep 6, 2026. WIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. WIT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WIT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. WIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Wipro Limited 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 WIT 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%36 vs 57WIT +21
- Quality30%34 vs 54WIT +20
- Momentum25%24 vs 28WIT +4
- Value30%69 vs 72Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WIT. WIT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience 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.
WIT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AKAM and WIT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WIT (Wipro Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
AKAM (Akamai Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 48.8% against 19.9%.
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
WITWIT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WITWIT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WITWIT on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
WITWIT on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
WITWIT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AKAM | WIT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.3% | +286.7% | WIT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WIT | 42 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | WITon balance | revenue growth 2.4% vs 1.6%; EPS growth -24.7% vs -3.6%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 15.6%; gross margin 56.4% vs 29%; operating margin 11.8% vs 16.1% — WIT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 69 vs 72 |
| Technicals | AKAM | Price vs 50-day -9.3% vs -5.4%; vs 200-day -3.8% vs -20.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WIT | Risk Resilience 36 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | WIT | Target upside 49.3% vs 286.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AKAM and WIT 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 leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 WIT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5WIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WIT +11
- 42 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- WIT +9
- 43 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- WIT +1
- 55 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- WIT +9
- 43 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 23 when WIT 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%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.64%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, 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 +0.56%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to WIT's edge.
- 2AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WIT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
WIT leads on balance| Metric | AKAM | WIT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 1.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.7% | -3.6% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 29% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 16.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 15.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 0.28 |
Performance
AKAM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AKAM | WIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | -10.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -29.5% | -13.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.3% | -22% |
| Year to date | 20.6% | -36.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35.7% | -34.7% |
Technicals
AKAM has the stronger structure| Metric | AKAM | WIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 33.3 |
| ADX (14) | 27.9 | 18.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.3% | -5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.8% | -20.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.8% | 19.9% |
Risk
WIT is the more resilient| Metric | AKAM | WIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | -0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | -1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -34.8% | -41.8% |
| Current drawdown | -34.7% | -40.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 44.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AKAM or WIT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WIT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 53 against AKAM's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 WIT the better buy right now?
WIT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 WIT over AKAM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WIT leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; WIT leads Quality by 20 points; WIT leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AKAM or WIT?
Analyst price targets imply +49.3% upside for AKAM and +286.7% for WIT, so the Street currently favors WIT. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AKAM or WIT?
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 WIT?
WIT 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 WIT?
WIT on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 WIT?
WIT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WIT on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 WIT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.4% vs 29%; operating margin 11.8% vs 16.1%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 15.6%. AKAM leads on one measure and WIT 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 WIT's lead over AKAM getting stronger or weaker?
WIT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-23, when WIT moved ahead of AKAM.
What would change the AKAM vs WIT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AKAM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to WIT's edge; AKAM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WIT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 WIT?
AKAM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WIT: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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 WIT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AKAM and WIT 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.