ALRM vs API Stock Comparison
ALRM currently leads API in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 70 vs 62. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between ALRM and API?
ALRM leads the current stock comparison as Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. vs Agora, Inc.
ALRM leads
ALRM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support ALRM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.
Agora, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALRM over API, 70 versus 62 as of Oct 31, 2026. ALRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. ALRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALRM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ALRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and Agora, Inc. 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 ALRM and API 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.
- Value67 vs 53ALRM +14
- Risk Resilience70 vs 64ALRM +6
- Quality63 vs 58ALRM +5
- Momentum80 vs 77Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor ALRM. ALRM’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ALRM's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALRM and API both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALRM (Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
API (Agora, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 39.3% against 24.2%.
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
ALRMALRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APIAPI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ALRMALRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ALRMALRM on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
ALRMALRM 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 | ALRM | API | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -7.5% | -40.1% | ALRM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ALRM | 70 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | APIon balance | revenue growth 4.7% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 2.1% vs 103.1%; TTM ROE 13.9% vs 2%; gross margin 63.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 13% vs -4.3% — API takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ALRM | Value 67 vs 53 |
| Technicals | ALRM | Price vs 50-day 14.5% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day 30% vs 7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ALRM | Risk Resilience 70 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | ALRM | Target upside -7.5% vs -40.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALRM and API 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 8 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 ALRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ALRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ALRM +8
- 70 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- ALRM +9
- 70 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- ALRM +7
- 63 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ALRM +13
- 65 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when ALRM moved ahead of API.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ALRM
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ALRM 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 -2.52%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.35%, 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.
- 1API closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge.
- 2API's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
API leads on balance| Metric | ALRM | API |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.7% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 103.1% |
| Gross margin | 63.4% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 13% | -4.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.9% | 2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.18 |
Performance
ALRM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALRM | API |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9% | -0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 19.2% | 6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.7% | 12.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 43.9% | 27.1% |
| Year to date | 25.4% | 9.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.4% | 23.9% |
Technicals
ALRM has the stronger structure| Metric | ALRM | API |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 93.8 | 67.8 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.5% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30% | 7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 39.3% |
Risk
ALRM is the more resilient| Metric | ALRM | API |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 0.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.04 | 1.21 |
| Max drawdown | -20.7% | -29% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -15.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.5% | 49.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALRM or API?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALRM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 70 against API's 62. The edge comes from value 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 ALRM or API the better buy right now?
ALRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 ALRM over API?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ALRM leads Value by 14 points; ALRM leads Risk Resilience by 6 points; ALRM leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALRM or API?
Analyst price targets imply -7.5% upside for ALRM and -40.1% for API, so the Street currently favors ALRM. 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, ALRM or API?
ALRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ALRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, ALRM or API?
API 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, ALRM or API?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ALRM or API?
ALRM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALRM 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 ALRM more profitable than API?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 13% vs -4.3%; ttm roe 13.9% vs 2%. ALRM leads on two measures and API on one measure, 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 ALRM's lead over API getting stronger or weaker?
ALRM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-28, when ALRM moved ahead of API.
What would change the ALRM vs API verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: API closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge; API's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 ALRM and API?
ALRM: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. API: 4 bullish / 0 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 ALRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On API it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALRM and API 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.