AMP vs TRI Stock Comparison
Compare AMP and TRI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMP and TRI?
AMP leads the current stock comparison as Ameriprise Financial, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ameriprise Financial, Inc. vs Thomson Reuters Corporation
AMP leads
AMP leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TRI on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AMP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ameriprise Financial, Inc.
Thomson Reuters Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMP over TRI, 65 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. AMP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TRI. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AMP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 points over 30 sessions. AMP 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 Ameriprise Financial, Inc. and Thomson Reuters Corporation 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 AMP and TRI 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 Resilience81 vs 25AMP +56
- Momentum58 vs 25AMP +33
- Value51 vs 43AMP +8
- Quality77 vs 70AMP +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AMP. AMP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
AMP's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMP and TRI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMP (Ameriprise Financial, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
TRI (Thomson Reuters Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 51.4% against 19.3%.
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
AMPAMP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMPAMP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMPAMP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
AMPAMP on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
AMPAMP on Risk Resilience, by 56 points.
Analyst upside
TRITRI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AMP, analyst targets favor TRI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMP | TRI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -5.7% | +36.2% | TRI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.7% | +73.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMP | 65 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | AMPon balance | revenue growth 2.6% vs -6.4%; EPS growth 23.5% vs -1.9%; TTM ROE 61.7% vs 14.3%; gross margin 50.2% vs 66.5%; operating margin 27.1% vs 27.6% — AMP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMP | Value 51 vs 43 |
| Technicals | AMP | Price vs 50-day 3% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 13.1% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AMP | Risk Resilience 81 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | TRI | Target upside -5.7% vs 36.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMP and TRI 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 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 AMP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMP +21
- 65 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- AMP +9
- 64 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- AMP +15
- 68 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- AMP +16
- 74 vs 58
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.69%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.87%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
AMP 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 +0.74%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.71%, 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.
- 1TRI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMP's edge.
- 2TRI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
AMP leads on balance| Metric | AMP | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.6% | -6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.5% | -1.9% |
| Gross margin | 50.2% | 66.5% |
| Operating margin | 27.1% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 61.7% | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.03 | 0.29 |
Performance
AMP leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMP | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.3% | -9.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2% | -6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22.8% | 16.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22% | -8.6% |
| Year to date | 12.9% | -28.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.4% | -45.7% |
Technicals
AMP has the stronger structure| Metric | AMP | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.2 | 36.6 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.1% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.3% | 51.4% |
Risk
AMP is the more resilient| Metric | AMP | TRI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | -1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.59 | -1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -21.1% | -57.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -46.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.3% | 49.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMP or TRI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against TRI's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 AMP or TRI the better buy right now?
AMP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 AMP over TRI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMP leads Risk Resilience by 56 points; AMP leads Momentum by 33 points; AMP leads Value by 8 points. AMP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by TRI 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, AMP or TRI?
Analyst price targets imply -5.7% upside for AMP and +36.2% for TRI, so the Street currently favors TRI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AMP. 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, AMP or TRI?
AMP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, AMP or TRI?
AMP 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, AMP or TRI?
AMP on the Momentum factor, by 33 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, AMP or TRI?
AMP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMP on Risk Resilience, by 56 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 AMP more profitable than TRI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.2% vs 66.5%; operating margin 27.1% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 61.7% vs 14.3%. AMP leads on one measure and TRI 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 AMP's lead over TRI getting stronger or weaker?
AMP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 21 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 AMP vs TRI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TRI closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMP's edge; TRI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 AMP and TRI?
AMP: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TRI: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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 AMP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TRI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMP and TRI 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.