AMRC vs WLDN Stock Comparison
WLDN currently leads AMRC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 33. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between AMRC and WLDN?
WLDN leads the current stock comparison as Willdan Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ameresco, Inc. vs Willdan Group, Inc.
WLDN leads
WLDN leads by 27 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 23 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AMRC on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support WLDN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ameresco, Inc.
Willdan Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WLDN over AMRC, 60 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. WLDN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. WLDN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMRC. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WLDN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. WLDN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions. WLDN 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 Ameresco, Inc. and Willdan Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare AMRC and WLDN 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 64WLDN +47
- Risk Resilience25 vs 61WLDN +36
- Value50 vs 66WLDN +16
- Momentum38 vs 48WLDN +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor WLDN. WLDN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
WLDN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMRC and WLDN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WLDN (Willdan Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
AMRC (Ameresco, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 57.2% against 23.2%.
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
WLDNWLDN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WLDNWLDN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WLDNWLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
WLDNWLDN on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
WLDNWLDN on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 WLDN, analyst targets favor AMRC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMRC | WLDN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +120.3% | +49.5% | AMRC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 WLDN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WLDN | 33 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | WLDN | revenue growth 28.4% vs 48.9%; EPS growth 151.4% vs 179.3%; TTM ROE 2.5% vs 20.9%; gross margin 16.1% vs 37.8%; operating margin 7% vs 7.1% |
| Valuation | WLDN | Value 50 vs 66 |
| Technicals | WLDN | Price vs 50-day -6.2% vs -6.8%; vs 200-day -23.7% vs -12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WLDN | Risk Resilience 25 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AMRC | Target upside 120.3% vs 49.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMRC and WLDN 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 27 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 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 WLDN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30WLDN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WLDN +27
- 33 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- WLDN +28
- 30 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- WLDN +23
- 31 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- WLDN +34
- 31 vs 65
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only AMRC
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WLDN
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
WLDN 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 -3.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.76%, 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 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge.
- 2AMRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WLDN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
WLDN leads on balance| Metric | AMRC | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.4% | 48.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 151.4% | 179.3% |
| Gross margin | 16.1% | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 7% | 7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.5% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.5 | 0.25 |
Performance
WLDN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMRC | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.4% | 4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | 2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.7% | 8.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.6% | 4.4% |
| Year to date | -30.7% | -26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -52.2% | -25.7% |
Technicals
WLDN has the stronger structure| Metric | AMRC | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.3 | 55.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21.2 | 12.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.2% | -6.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.7% | -12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57.2% | 23.2% |
Risk
WLDN is the more resilient| Metric | AMRC | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.13 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.74 | -0.11 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.21 | -0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -55.1% | -50.4% |
| Current drawdown | -50.2% | -43.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 68.7% | 58.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMRC or WLDN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WLDN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against AMRC's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 WLDN the better buy right now?
WLDN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 WLDN over AMRC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WLDN leads Quality by 47 points; WLDN leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; WLDN leads Value by 16 points. WLDN leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by AMRC 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, AMRC or WLDN?
Analyst price targets imply +120.3% upside for AMRC and +49.5% for WLDN, so the Street currently favors AMRC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WLDN. 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 WLDN?
WLDN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 WLDN?
WLDN 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 WLDN?
WLDN on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 WLDN?
WLDN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WLDN on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 WLDN?
WLDN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 16.1% vs 37.8%; operating margin 7% vs 7.1%; ttm roe 2.5% vs 20.9%.
Is WLDN's lead over AMRC getting stronger or weaker?
WLDN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 27 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMRC vs WLDN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMRC closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge; AMRC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WLDN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 AMRC and WLDN?
AMRC: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WLDN: 1 bullish / 3 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 AMRC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WLDN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMRC and WLDN 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.