AME vs XYL Stock Comparison
Compare AME and XYL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AME and XYL?
XYL leads the current stock comparison as Xylem Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AMETEK, Inc. vs Xylem Inc.
XYL leads
XYL leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from AME.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support XYL, and the lead recently changed hands.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XYL over AME, 50 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. XYL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while AME holds the stronger momentum profile. XYL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XYL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. XYL lead: Reversed — AME led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XYL now leads by 1.
Compare AMETEK, Inc. and Xylem 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 AME and XYL 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 59XYL +20
- Momentum39 vs 24AME +15
- Quality58 vs 52AME +6
- Risk Resilience71 vs 69Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor XYL. XYL’s edge is concentrated in value; AME keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
XYL's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AME and XYL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XYL (Xylem Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
AME (AMETEK, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, 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
XYLXYL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XYLXYL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
XYLXYL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
AMEAME on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
AMEAME carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
XYLXYL 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 | AME | XYL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13% | +39.9% | XYL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.5% | +23.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XYL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 49 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | XYLon balance | revenue growth 6% vs 9.9%; EPS growth 2.3% vs 40.5%; TTM ROE 14.5% vs 9.2%; gross margin 36.6% vs 39.2%; operating margin 26.1% vs 14.5% — XYL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XYL | Value 39 vs 59 |
| Technicals | AME | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs -8.5%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs -13.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 71 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | XYL | Target upside 13% vs 39.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AME and XYL 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 XYL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XYL lead: Reversed — AME led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XYL now leads by 1.
- Today
- XYL +1
- 49 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- XYL +3
- 46 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- AME +2
- 54 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- XYL +8
- 54 vs 62
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when XYL 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.40%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.83%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
AME is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +3.26%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.38%, 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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to XYL's edge.
- 2AME's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3XYL starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
XYL leads on balance| Metric | AME | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6% | 9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 40.5% |
| Gross margin | 36.6% | 39.2% |
| Operating margin | 26.1% | 14.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.5% | 9.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.21 | 0.29 |
Performance
AME leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AME | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.4% | -12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.6% | -0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.4% | -12.9% |
| Year to date | 14.1% | -21.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.2% | -23.9% |
Technicals
AME has the stronger structure| Metric | AME | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.2 | 31 |
| ADX (14) | 18.5 | 29.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | -8.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | -13.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.8% | 24.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AME | XYL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.91 | -1.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.62 | -1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -13.7% | -30.9% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.3% | 24.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AME or XYL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XYL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against AME's 49. The edge comes from value. AME 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 AME or XYL the better buy right now?
XYL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XYL over AME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XYL leads Value by 20 points; AME leads Momentum by 15 points; AME leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AME or XYL?
Analyst price targets imply +13% upside for AME and +39.9% for XYL, so the Street currently favors XYL. 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, AME or XYL?
XYL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XYL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 XYL?
XYL 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 XYL?
AME on the Momentum factor, by 15 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 XYL?
AME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AME carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 XYL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.6% vs 39.2%; operating margin 26.1% vs 14.5%; ttm roe 14.5% vs 9.2%. AME leads on two measures and XYL 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 XYL's lead over AME getting stronger or weaker?
XYL lead: Reversed — AME led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XYL now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when XYL moved ahead of AME.
What would change the AME vs XYL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AME closes the Value gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to XYL's edge; AME's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; XYL starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 XYL?
AME: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XYL: 0 bullish / 4 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 AME is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XYL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AME and XYL 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.