AMRC vs VRT Stock Comparison
VRT currently leads AMRC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 38 vs 31. The clearest difference is quality, while AMRC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AMRC and VRT?
VRT leads the current stock comparison as Vertiv Holdings Co, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ameresco, Inc. vs Vertiv Holdings Co
VRT leads
VRT leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AMRC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support VRT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ameresco, Inc.
Vertiv Holdings Co
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VRT over AMRC, 38 versus 31 as of Oct 22, 2026. VRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while AMRC holds the stronger value profile. VRT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMRC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VRT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ameresco, Inc. and Vertiv Holdings Co 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 AMRC and VRT 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.
- Quality17 vs 77VRT +60
- Value50 vs 25AMRC +25
- Momentum29 vs 12AMRC +17
- Risk Resilience25 vs 32VRT +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor VRT. VRT’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; AMRC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
VRT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMRC and VRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VRT (Vertiv Holdings Co): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
AMRC (Ameresco, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 49.3% against 37.5%.
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
VRTVRT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMRCAMRC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMRCAMRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
AMRCAMRC on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
VRTVRT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
AMRCAMRC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VRT, analyst targets favor AMRC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMRC | VRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +125.6% | +77.3% | AMRC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.1% | +47.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 16 | 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 VRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VRT | 31 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | VRTon balance | revenue growth 28.4% vs 23.6%; EPS growth 151.4% vs 26.5%; TTM ROE 2.5% vs 42.1%; gross margin 16.1% vs 37.5%; operating margin 7% vs 19.1% — VRT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMRC | Value 50 vs 25 |
| Technicals | VRT | Price vs 50-day -12.2% vs -16.1%; vs 200-day -30.4% vs -23.2% |
| Risk Resilience | VRT | Risk Resilience 25 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | AMRC | Target upside 125.6% vs 77.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMRC and VRT 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 VRT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VRT +7
- 31 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- VRT +7
- 32 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- VRT +12
- 32 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- VRT +10
- 42 vs 52
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AMRC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VRT
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, BB Lower Band Breach, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
VRT 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 +5.81%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.22%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1AMRC closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRT's edge.
- 2AMRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate VRT's advantage entirely.
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
VRT leads on balance| Metric | AMRC | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.4% | 23.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 151.4% | 26.5% |
| Gross margin | 16.1% | 37.5% |
| Operating margin | 7% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.5% | 42.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.5 | 0.68 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AMRC | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.2% | -14.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -19.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -19.8% | -29.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.9% | -33.1% |
| Year to date | -33.4% | 25.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -56% | 14.5% |
Technicals
VRT has the stronger structure| Metric | AMRC | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 20 |
| ADX (14) | 21.1 | 25 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.2% | -16.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -30.4% | -23.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 49.3% | 37.5% |
Risk
VRT is the more resilient| Metric | AMRC | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.04 | 2.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.83 | 0.5 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.35 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -56.4% | -45.9% |
| Current drawdown | -55.9% | -45.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 68.5% | 65.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -6.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMRC or VRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VRT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 38 against AMRC's 31. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. AMRC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 AMRC or VRT the better buy right now?
VRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VRT over AMRC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VRT leads Quality by 60 points; AMRC leads Value by 25 points; AMRC leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMRC or VRT?
Analyst price targets imply +125.6% upside for AMRC and +77.3% for VRT, so the Street currently favors AMRC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VRT. 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, AMRC or VRT?
AMRC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMRC 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, AMRC or VRT?
AMRC 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, AMRC or VRT?
AMRC on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, AMRC or VRT?
VRT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VRT on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 AMRC more profitable than VRT?
VRT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 16.1% vs 37.5%; operating margin 7% vs 19.1%; ttm roe 2.5% vs 42.1%.
Is VRT's lead over AMRC getting stronger or weaker?
VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMRC vs VRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMRC closes the Quality gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRT's edge; AMRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VRT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate VRT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AMRC and VRT?
AMRC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. VRT: 2 bullish / 4 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 AMRC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VRT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMRC and VRT 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.