ALGN vs WAT Stock Comparison
ALGN currently leads WAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while WAT has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ALGN and WAT?
ALGN leads the current stock comparison as Align Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Align Technology, Inc. vs Waters Corporation
ALGN leads
ALGN leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ALGN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Align Technology, Inc.
Waters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALGN over WAT, 67 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. ALGN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WAT holds the stronger momentum profile. ALGN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALGN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ALGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Align Technology, Inc. and Waters Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ALGN and WAT 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.
- Value62 vs 32ALGN +30
- Quality70 vs 50ALGN +20
- Momentum76 vs 88WAT +12
- Risk Resilience58 vs 64WAT +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ALGN. ALGN’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WAT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ALGN's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALGN and WAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALGN (Align Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WAT (Waters Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
ALGNALGN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ALGNALGN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ALGNALGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
WATWAT on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
WATWAT on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
ALGNALGN 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 | ALGN | WAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.4% | -6.2% | ALGN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.5% | +38% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 12 | 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 ALGN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ALGN | 67 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | ALGNon balance | revenue growth 1.5% vs 29.8%; EPS growth -4.4% vs -59.8%; TTM ROE 10.1% vs 1.9%; gross margin 66.5% vs 50.8%; operating margin 13.3% vs 8% — ALGN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ALGN | Value 62 vs 32 |
| Technicals | WAT | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs 26.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WAT | Risk Resilience 58 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | ALGN | Target upside 28.4% vs -6.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALGN and WAT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ALGN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ALGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ALGN +11
- 67 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- ALGN +15
- 68 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ALGN +4
- 55 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- ALGN +3
- 54 vs 51
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 30 when ALGN moved ahead of WAT.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ALGN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.05%)
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only WAT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.00%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ALGN 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.49%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.61%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1WAT closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALGN's edge.
- 2WAT's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ALGN'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
ALGN leads on balance| Metric | ALGN | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.5% | 29.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.4% | -59.8% |
| Gross margin | 66.5% | 50.8% |
| Operating margin | 13.3% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.1% | 1.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.35 |
Performance
WAT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALGN | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.7% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.4% | 25.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.9% | 53.6% |
| Year to date | -1.6% | 25.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.6% | 32.7% |
Technicals
WAT has the stronger structure| Metric | ALGN | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.2 | 78.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 36 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | 26.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.9% | 27.9% |
Risk
WAT is the more resilient| Metric | ALGN | WAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.3 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.79 | 1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -29.2% | -31.3% |
| Current drawdown | -22.2% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.3% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALGN or WAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALGN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against WAT's 56. The edge comes from value and quality. WAT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ALGN or WAT the better buy right now?
ALGN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ALGN over WAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ALGN leads Value by 30 points; ALGN leads Quality by 20 points; WAT leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALGN or WAT?
Analyst price targets imply +28.4% upside for ALGN and -6.2% for WAT, so the Street currently favors ALGN. 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, ALGN or WAT?
ALGN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ALGN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, ALGN or WAT?
ALGN 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, ALGN or WAT?
WAT on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, ALGN or WAT?
WAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WAT 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 ALGN more profitable than WAT?
ALGN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66.5% vs 50.8%; operating margin 13.3% vs 8%; ttm roe 10.1% vs 1.9%.
Is ALGN's lead over WAT getting stronger or weaker?
ALGN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-30, when ALGN moved ahead of WAT.
What would change the ALGN vs WAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAT closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALGN's edge; WAT's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ALGN'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 ALGN and WAT?
ALGN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. WAT: 6 bullish / 2 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 ALGN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALGN and WAT 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.