AMSF vs AMTM Stock Comparison
Compare AMSF and AMTM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMSF and AMTM?
AMSF leads the current stock comparison as AMERISAFE, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AMERISAFE, Inc. vs Amentum Holdings, Inc.
AMSF leads
AMSF leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from AMTM. Wall Street currently favors AMTM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AMSF, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AMERISAFE, Inc.
Amentum Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMSF over AMTM, 50 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMSF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while AMTM holds the stronger value profile. AMSF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMTM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMSF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AMSF lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMSF now leads by 6.
Compare AMERISAFE, Inc. and Amentum Holdings, 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 AMSF and AMTM 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.
- Quality60 vs 26AMSF +34
- Value58 vs 74AMTM +16
- Risk Resilience46 vs 40AMSF +6
- Momentum30 vs 33Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AMSF. AMSF’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; AMTM keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
AMSF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMSF and AMTM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMSF (AMERISAFE, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
AMTM (Amentum Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 41.6% against 26.6%.
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
AMSFAMSF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMSFAMSF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMTMAMTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AMSFAMSF on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
AMTMAMTM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AMSF, analyst targets favor AMTM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMSF | AMTM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | +40.2% | AMTM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +6.1% | +40.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 6 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMSF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMSF | 50 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | AMSF | EPS growth 83.7% vs 22.7%; TTM ROE 18.4% vs 4.4%; gross margin 25.8% vs 8.7%; operating margin 9% vs 4.1% |
| Valuation | AMTM | Value 58 vs 74 |
| Technicals | AMTM | Price vs 50-day -16.1% vs -8.9%; vs 200-day -26.1% vs -25.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AMSF | Risk Resilience 46 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | AMTM | Target upside 33.2% vs 40.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMSF and AMTM 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 6 points.
- 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 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 AMSF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMSF lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMSF now leads by 6.
- Today
- AMSF +6
- 50 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- AMSF +7
- 52 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- AMTM +1
- 48 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- AMSF +12
- 61 vs 49
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when AMTM moved ahead of AMSF.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.31%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.12%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
AMSF 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 +0.45%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.51%, 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.
- 1AMTM closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMSF's edge.
- 2AMTM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMSF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
AMSF leads on balance| Metric | AMSF | AMTM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.8% | 0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 83.7% | 22.7% |
| Gross margin | 25.8% | 8.7% |
| Operating margin | 9% | 4.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.4% | 4.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.81 |
Performance
AMTM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMSF | AMTM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.5% | -13.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23% | -11.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25% | -30.1% |
| Year to date | -33% | -31.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -46.2% | -18.8% |
Technicals
AMTM has the stronger structure| Metric | AMSF | AMTM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 39.5 |
| ADX (14) | 39.2 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.1% | -8.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.1% | -25.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.6% | 41.6% |
Risk
AMSF is the more resilient| Metric | AMSF | AMTM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.19 | 1.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.04 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.53 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -45.8% | -48.5% |
| Current drawdown | -45.8% | -47.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.8% | 47.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMSF or AMTM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMSF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against AMTM's 44. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. AMTM 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 AMSF or AMTM the better buy right now?
AMSF 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMSF over AMTM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMSF leads Quality by 34 points; AMTM leads Value by 16 points; AMSF leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMSF or AMTM?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for AMSF and +40.2% for AMTM, so the Street currently favors AMTM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AMSF. 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, AMSF or AMTM?
AMTM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMTM 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, AMSF or AMTM?
AMSF 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, AMSF or AMTM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AMSF or AMTM?
AMSF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMSF on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 AMSF more profitable than AMTM?
AMSF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.8% vs 8.7%; operating margin 9% vs 4.1%; ttm roe 18.4% vs 4.4%.
Is AMSF's lead over AMTM getting stronger or weaker?
AMSF lead: Reversed — AMTM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMSF now leads by 6. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when AMTM moved ahead of AMSF.
What would change the AMSF vs AMTM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMTM closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMSF's edge; AMTM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMSF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 AMSF and AMTM?
AMSF: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AMTM: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 AMSF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On AMTM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMSF and AMTM 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.