ALB vs RPM Stock Comparison
RPM currently leads ALB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between ALB and RPM?
RPM leads the current stock comparison as RPM International Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Albemarle Corporation vs RPM International Inc.
RPM leads
RPM leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors ALB on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RPM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Albemarle Corporation
RPM International Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RPM over ALB, 58 versus 43 as of Oct 24, 2026. RPM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. RPM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALB. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RPM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. RPM 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 Albemarle Corporation and RPM International Inc. 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 ALB and RPM 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 vs 52RPM +27
- Quality40 vs 57RPM +17
- Value51 vs 61RPM +10
- Risk Resilience61 vs 65RPM +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RPM. RPM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
RPM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALB and RPM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RPM (RPM International Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
ALB (Albemarle Corporation): 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
RPMRPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ALBALB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RPMRPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
RPMRPM on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
RPMRPM on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ALBALB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RPM, analyst targets favor ALB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALB | RPM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +107.8% | +30.6% | ALB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +79.6% | +34.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | 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 | ALB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.02% | 7.23% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.540 | $1.460 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.620 | $2.070 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #342 | #178 |
RPM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.23% a year against ALB's 1.02%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 RPM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RPM | 43 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | RPMon balance | revenue growth 22% vs 38.8%; EPS growth 58.3% vs 3.2%; TTM ROE 2.3% vs 20.9%; gross margin 23.9% vs 41.4%; operating margin 11.9% vs 12.3% — RPM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RPM | Value 51 vs 61 |
| Technicals | RPM | Price vs 50-day -19.1% vs -3.1%; vs 200-day -38.3% vs -6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | RPM | Risk Resilience 61 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | ALB | Target upside 107.8% vs 30.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALB and RPM 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 15 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)
- 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 RPM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23RPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RPM +15
- 43 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- RPM +14
- 42 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- RPM +13
- 42 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- RPM +3
- 56 vs 59
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when ALB moved ahead of RPM.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ALB
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.92%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RPM
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
RPM 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 +1.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.93%, 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.
- 1ALB closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to RPM's edge.
- 2ALB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
RPM leads on balance| Metric | ALB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 22% | 38.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 58.3% | 3.2% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 41.4% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 12.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.3% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.19 | 0.87 |
Performance
RPM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ALB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.6% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.4% | -8.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -50.3% | -5.9% |
| Year to date | -33% | -5.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.6% | -12.8% |
Technicals
RPM has the stronger structure| Metric | ALB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.6 | 60.9 |
| ADX (14) | 40 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.1% | -3.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -38.3% | -6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.8% | 25.8% |
Risk
RPM is the more resilient| Metric | ALB | RPM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.36 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | -0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.43 | -0.75 |
| Max drawdown | -57.1% | -22.4% |
| Current drawdown | -56.6% | -17.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.9% | 30% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALB or RPM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RPM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 58 against ALB's 43. 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 ALB or RPM the better buy right now?
RPM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 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 RPM over ALB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RPM leads Momentum by 27 points; RPM leads Quality by 17 points; RPM leads Value by 10 points. RPM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ALB 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, ALB or RPM?
Analyst price targets imply +107.8% upside for ALB and +30.6% for RPM, so the Street currently favors ALB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RPM. 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, ALB or RPM?
RPM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RPM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, ALB or RPM?
ALB 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, ALB or RPM?
RPM 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, ALB or RPM?
RPM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RPM on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ALB more profitable than RPM?
RPM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 41.4%; operating margin 11.9% vs 12.3%; ttm roe 2.3% vs 20.9%.
Is RPM's lead over ALB getting stronger or weaker?
RPM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when ALB moved ahead of RPM.
What would change the ALB vs RPM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALB closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to RPM's edge; ALB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RPM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 ALB and RPM?
ALB: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RPM: 1 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 ALB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RPM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ALB and RPM 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.