ALRM vs COMP Stock Comparison
Compare ALRM and COMP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ALRM and COMP?
ALRM leads the current stock comparison as Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. vs Compass, Inc.
ALRM leads
ALRM leads by 35 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 28 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors COMP on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ALRM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.
Compass, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALRM over COMP, 62 versus 27 as of Sep 11, 2026. ALRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. ALRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors COMP. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALRM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 35 points over 30 sessions. ALRM 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 Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and Compass, 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 ALRM and COMP 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.
- Risk Resilience69 vs 19ALRM +50
- Quality63 vs 19ALRM +44
- Value67 vs 42ALRM +25
- Momentum50 vs 25ALRM +25
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ALRM. ALRM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ALRM's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALRM and COMP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALRM (Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
COMP (Compass, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 52.4% against 22.3%.
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
ALRMALRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COMPCOMP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ALRMALRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
ALRMALRM on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
ALRMALRM on Risk Resilience, by 50 points.
Analyst upside
COMPCOMP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ALRM, analyst targets favor COMP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALRM | COMP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.4% | +32.5% | COMP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | +43.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 7 | 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
4 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 | 62 vs 27 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 4.7% vs 59.2%; EPS growth 2.1% vs 4.3%; TTM ROE 13.9% vs 3.6%; gross margin 63.4% vs 12.7% |
| Valuation | ALRM | Value 67 vs 42 |
| Technicals | ALRM | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs -10.7%; vs 200-day 12.3% vs -0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | ALRM | Risk Resilience 69 vs 19 |
| Analyst expectations | COMP | Target upside 8.4% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALRM and COMP 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 35 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 ALRM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 35 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ALRM +35
- 62 vs 27
- 7 sessions ago
- ALRM +36
- 66 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- ALRM +28
- 68 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- ALRM +27
- 68 vs 41
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.91%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.34%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.75%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1COMP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge.
- 2COMP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
Split| Metric | ALRM | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.7% | 59.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 4.3% |
| Gross margin | 63.4% | 12.7% |
| Operating margin | 13% | -0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.9% | 3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 1.38 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ALRM | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.5% | -20.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.5% | 28.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.9% | 17.4% |
| Year to date | 8.1% | -4.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.2% | 8.6% |
Technicals
ALRM has the stronger structure| Metric | ALRM | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.4 | 26.9 |
| ADX (14) | 20.1 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | -10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.3% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.3% | 52.4% |
Risk
ALRM is the more resilient| Metric | ALRM | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.6 | 2.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.03 | 0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.05 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -25.5% | -50.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4.2% | -25.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 31% | 66.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALRM or COMP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against COMP's 27. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 ALRM or COMP the better buy right now?
ALRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 ALRM over COMP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ALRM leads Risk Resilience by 50 points; ALRM leads Quality by 44 points; ALRM leads Value by 25 points. ALRM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by COMP 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, ALRM or COMP?
Analyst price targets imply +8.4% upside for ALRM and +32.5% for COMP, so the Street currently favors COMP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ALRM. 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, ALRM or COMP?
ALRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ALRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 COMP?
COMP 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 COMP?
ALRM on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, ALRM or COMP?
ALRM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALRM on Risk Resilience, by 50 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 COMP?
ALRM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.4% vs 12.7%; operating margin 13% vs -0.7%; ttm roe 13.9% vs 3.6%.
Is ALRM's lead over COMP getting stronger or weaker?
ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 28 to 35 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ALRM vs COMP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COMP closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge; COMP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 COMP?
ALRM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. COMP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 ALRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COMP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALRM and COMP 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.