ALK vs CHRW Stock Comparison
Compare ALK and CHRW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ALK and CHRW?
CHRW leads the current stock comparison as C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alaska Air Group, Inc. vs C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
CHRW leads
CHRW leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ALK on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CHRW, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alaska Air Group, Inc.
C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHRW over ALK, 55 versus 42 as of Sep 6, 2026. CHRW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. CHRW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALK. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alaska Air Group, Inc. and C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc. 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 ALK and CHRW 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.
- Quality30%30 vs 52CHRW +22
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 61CHRW +22
- Momentum25%35 vs 52CHRW +17
- Value30%60 vs 59Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CHRW. CHRW’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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.
CHRW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALK and CHRW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHRW (C.H. Robinson Worldwide, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ALK (Alaska Air Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.2% against 27.8%.
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
CHRWCHRW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALKALK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CHRWCHRW on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
CHRWCHRW on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
ALKALK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHRW, analyst targets favor ALK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALK | CHRW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.3% | +35% | ALK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.3% | +73.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHRW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHRW | 42 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 23.2% vs 23%; EPS growth 58.6% vs 28.5%; TTM ROE -4.5% vs 36%; gross margin 94.6% vs 10.1%; operating margin -1.5% vs 4.9% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 60 vs 59 |
| Technicals | ALK | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -12.2%; vs 200-day -8.4% vs -14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CHRW | Risk Resilience 39 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | ALK | Target upside 39.3% vs 35% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALK and CHRW 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CHRW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHRW +13
- 42 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CHRW +19
- 37 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- CHRW +4
- 42 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- CHRW +8
- 50 vs 58
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when CHRW moved ahead of ALK.
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 (1.33%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.98%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.70%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CHRW 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 +1.55%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.65%, 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.
- 1ALK closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge.
- 2ALK's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | ALK | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.2% | 23% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 58.6% | 28.5% |
| Gross margin | 94.6% | 10.1% |
| Operating margin | -1.5% | 4.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.5% | 36% |
| Debt to equity | 2.08 | 1.21 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ALK | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.9% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.8% | -19.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.6% | -17.8% |
| Year to date | -16.4% | -8.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -32.7% | 14.6% |
Technicals
ALK has the stronger structure| Metric | ALK | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.4 | 56.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -12.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.4% | -14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.2% | 27.8% |
Risk
CHRW is the more resilient| Metric | ALK | CHRW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.13 | 0.68 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.6 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.1 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -46.5% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -34.2% | -29.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.7% | 44.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALK or CHRW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHRW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 55 against ALK's 42. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 ALK or CHRW the better buy right now?
CHRW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHRW over ALK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CHRW leads Quality by 22 points; CHRW leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; CHRW leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALK or CHRW?
Analyst price targets imply +39.3% upside for ALK and +35% for CHRW, so the Street currently favors ALK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHRW. 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, ALK or CHRW?
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, ALK or CHRW?
ALK 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, ALK or CHRW?
CHRW on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, ALK or CHRW?
CHRW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHRW on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 ALK more profitable than CHRW?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 94.6% vs 10.1%; operating margin -1.5% vs 4.9%; ttm roe -4.5% vs 36%. ALK leads on one measure and CHRW 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 CHRW's lead over ALK getting stronger or weaker?
CHRW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 13 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 2026-08-12, when CHRW moved ahead of ALK.
What would change the ALK vs CHRW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALK closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHRW's edge; ALK's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; CHRW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 ALK and CHRW?
ALK: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHRW: 1 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 ALK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CHRW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ALK and CHRW 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.