ALB vs SHW Stock Comparison
SHW currently leads ALB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum, while ALB has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ALB and SHW?
SHW leads the current stock comparison as The Sherwin-Williams Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Albemarle Corporation vs The Sherwin-Williams Company
SHW leads
SHW leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ALB on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SHW, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Albemarle Corporation
The Sherwin-Williams Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SHW over ALB, 59 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. SHW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while ALB holds the stronger value profile. SHW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALB. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SHW today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SHW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Albemarle Corporation and The Sherwin-Williams Company 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 SHW 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 80SHW +55
- Quality40 vs 62SHW +22
- Value51 vs 41ALB +10
- Risk Resilience60 vs 54ALB +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SHW. SHW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; ALB keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +30
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.11%)
SHW's lead widened by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALB and SHW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SHW (The Sherwin-Williams Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
ALB (Albemarle Corporation): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 30.4% against 24.6%.
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
SHWSHW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ALBALB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ALBALB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
SHWSHW on the Momentum factor, by 55 points.
Lower downside
ALBALB on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 SHW, analyst targets favor ALB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALB | SHW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +108.7% | +12.1% | ALB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +78.6% | +23.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 14 | 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 | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.02% | 12.08% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.540 | $1.787 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.620 | $3.160 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #342 | #63 |
SHW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.08% 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SHW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SHW | 43 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | SHWon balance | revenue growth 22% vs 19.8%; EPS growth 58.3% vs 58.3%; TTM ROE 2.3% vs 62.1%; gross margin 23.9% vs 49.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 16.4% — SHW takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ALB | Value 51 vs 41 |
| Technicals | SHW | Price vs 50-day -19.9% vs 1.3%; vs 200-day -37.3% vs 0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ALB | Risk Resilience 60 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | ALB | Target upside 108.7% vs 12.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALB and SHW 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 wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 SHW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SHW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SHW +16
- 43 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- SHW +15
- 42 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SHW +13
- 40 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- ALB +5
- 56 vs 51
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when SHW moved ahead of ALB.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ALB
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.98%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only SHW
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
SHW 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.36%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.37%, AIQ +8 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 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHW's edge.
- 2ALB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
SHW leads on balance| Metric | ALB | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 22% | 19.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 58.3% | 58.3% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 49.1% |
| Operating margin | 11.9% | 16.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.3% | 62.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.19 | 3.69 |
Performance
SHW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALB | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.5% | 5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -51.7% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | -30.9% | 3.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.5% | 1.4% |
Technicals
SHW has the stronger structure| Metric | ALB | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21.1 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | 18.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.9% | 1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -37.3% | 0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.4% | 24.6% |
Risk
ALB is the more resilient| Metric | ALB | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.38 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.45 | 0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -56.1% | -21.4% |
| Current drawdown | -55.6% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.1% | 28% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALB or SHW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SHW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against ALB's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. ALB is not without a case — it holds the better value profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 SHW the better buy right now?
SHW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 SHW over ALB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SHW leads Momentum by 55 points; SHW leads Quality by 22 points; ALB leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALB or SHW?
Analyst price targets imply +108.7% upside for ALB and +12.1% for SHW, so the Street currently favors ALB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SHW. 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 SHW?
ALB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ALB 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 SHW?
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 SHW?
SHW on the Momentum factor, by 55 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 SHW?
ALB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALB on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 SHW?
SHW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 49.1%; operating margin 11.9% vs 16.4%; ttm roe 2.3% vs 62.1%.
Is SHW's lead over ALB getting stronger or weaker?
SHW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when SHW moved ahead of ALB.
What would change the ALB vs SHW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALB closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHW's edge; ALB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 SHW?
ALB: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SHW: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 SHW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ALB and SHW 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.