AME vs AOS Stock Comparison
AOS currently leads AME in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 55. The clearest difference is value, while AME has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AME and AOS?
AOS leads the current stock comparison as A. O. Smith Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AMETEK, Inc. vs A. O. Smith Corporation
AOS leads
AOS leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from AME. Wall Street currently favors AME on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AOS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AMETEK, Inc.
A. O. Smith Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AOS over AME, 68 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. AOS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AME holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AOS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AME. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AOS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AOS lead: Reversed — AME led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AOS now leads by 13.
Compare AMETEK, Inc. and A. O. Smith Corporation 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 AME and AOS 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.
- Value39 vs 66AOS +27
- Momentum61 vs 73AOS +12
- Quality58 vs 69AOS +11
- Risk Resilience69 vs 65AME +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AOS. AOS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AME keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +5
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
AOS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AME and AOS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AOS (A. O. Smith Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AME (AMETEK, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals, analyst expectations.
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
AOSAOS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AOSAOS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AOSAOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
AOSAOS on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
AMEAME on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
AMEAME on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AOS, analyst targets favor AME. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AME | AOS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.8% | +10.7% | AME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +24.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 3 | 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 | AME | AOS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 11.49% | 7.09% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $0.980 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.240 | $1.380 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #70 | #189 |
AME grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.49% a year against AOS's 7.09%. 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 AOS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AOS | 55 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | AOSon balance | revenue growth 6% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 2.3% vs 5.9%; TTM ROE 14.5% vs 27%; gross margin 36.6% vs 38.6%; operating margin 26.1% vs 17.6% — AOS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AOS | Value 39 vs 66 |
| Technicals | AME | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs 7%; vs 200-day 6.1% vs -4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AME | Risk Resilience 69 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | AME | Target upside 14.8% vs 10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AME and AOS 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AOS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AOS lead: Reversed — AME led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AOS now leads by 13.
- Today
- AOS +13
- 55 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- AOS +22
- 47 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- AME +1
- 60 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- AOS +12
- 51 vs 63
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when AOS moved ahead of AME.
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
Only AME
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.02%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only AOS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.69%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
AOS 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.23%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.66%, 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.
- 1AME closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AOS's edge.
- 2AME's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AOS'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
AOS leads on balance| Metric | AME | AOS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 5.9% |
| Gross margin | 36.6% | 38.6% |
| Operating margin | 26.1% | 17.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.5% | 27% |
| Debt to equity | 0.21 | 0.37 |
Performance
AME leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AME | AOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | 2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | 8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.4% | 1.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | -4.4% |
| Year to date | 20.9% | -9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 32.6% | -11.7% |
Technicals
AME has the stronger structure| Metric | AME | AOS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.9 | 70.7 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | 7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.1% | -4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.9% | 26.9% |
Risk
AME is the more resilient| Metric | AME | AOS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | -0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.92 | -0.61 |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -31.2% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -24.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.9% | 27.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AME or AOS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AOS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 68 against AME's 55. The edge comes from value and momentum. AME is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 AME or AOS the better buy right now?
AOS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AOS over AME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AOS leads Value by 27 points; AOS leads Momentum by 12 points; AOS leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AME or AOS?
Analyst price targets imply +14.8% upside for AME and +10.7% for AOS, so the Street currently favors AME. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AOS. 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, AME or AOS?
AOS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AOS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, AME or AOS?
AOS 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, AME or AOS?
AOS 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, AME or AOS?
AME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AME on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 AME more profitable than AOS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.6% vs 38.6%; operating margin 26.1% vs 17.6%; ttm roe 14.5% vs 27%. AME leads on one measure and AOS 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 AOS's lead over AME getting stronger or weaker?
AOS lead: Reversed — AME led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AOS now leads by 13. 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 2026-10-08, when AOS moved ahead of AME.
What would change the AME vs AOS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AME closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to AOS's edge; AME's EMA Ribbon Compression turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AOS'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 AME and AOS?
AME: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AOS: 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 AME is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AOS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AME and AOS 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.