AMZN vs META Stock Comparison
AMZN currently leads META in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while META has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AMZN and META?
AMZN leads the current stock comparison as Amazon.com, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amazon.com, Inc. vs Meta Platforms, Inc.
AMZN leads
AMZN leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from META.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AMZN, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Amazon.com, Inc.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMZN over META, 60 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. AMZN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while META holds the stronger quality profile. AMZN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMZN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AMZN lead: Reversed — META led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMZN now leads by 8.
Compare Amazon.com, Inc. and Meta Platforms, Inc. 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 AMZN and META 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.
- Momentum75 vs 37AMZN +38
- Quality77 vs 83META +6
- Risk Resilience54 vs 58META +4
- Value35 vs 32Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AMZN. AMZN’s edge is concentrated in momentum; META keeps a meaningful quality 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
AMZN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMZN and META both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMZN (Amazon.com, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% against 29.1%.
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
AMZNAMZN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMZNAMZN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AMZNAMZN on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
METAMETA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
AMZNAMZN 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 | AMZN | META | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.6% | +14.5% | AMZN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.6% | +50.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 31 | 21 | 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 AMZN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMZN | 60 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | AMZNon balance | revenue growth 10.5% vs 8%; EPS growth 106.4% vs -41.1%; TTM ROE 30.5% vs 29.7%; gross margin 50.8% vs 81.7%; operating margin 12.1% vs 38.1% — AMZN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 32 |
| Technicals | META | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs 5.8%; vs 200-day 8% vs 9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | META | Risk Resilience 54 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | AMZN | Target upside 23.6% vs 14.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMZN and META 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 8 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 AMZN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AMZN lead: Reversed — META led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMZN now leads by 8.
- Today
- AMZN +8
- 60 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- AMZN +2
- 56 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- META +13
- 52 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- AMZN +3
- 56 vs 53
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when AMZN moved ahead of META.
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 / 0 bearish
Only AMZN
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only META
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
META 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 -0.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.47%, 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.
- 1META closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMZN's edge.
- 2META generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AMZN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
AMZN leads on balance| Metric | AMZN | META |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.5% | 8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.4% | -41.1% |
| Gross margin | 50.8% | 81.7% |
| Operating margin | 12.1% | 38.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.5% | 29.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.4 | 0.43 |
Performance
AMZN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AMZN | META |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.3% | 10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.1% | 3.8% |
| Year to date | 13.8% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.5% | -2.5% |
Technicals
META has the stronger structure| Metric | AMZN | META |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 39.8 |
| ADX (14) | 14 | 30.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | 5.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8% | 9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.1% | 40.4% |
Risk
META is the more resilient| Metric | AMZN | META |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.46 | 1.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | 0.04 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.31 | 0.06 |
| Max drawdown | -21.7% | -30.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.5% | -10.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.7% | 42.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMZN or META?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMZN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against META's 52. The edge comes from momentum. META is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 AMZN or META the better buy right now?
AMZN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 AMZN over META?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMZN leads Momentum by 38 points; META leads Quality by 6 points; META leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMZN or META?
Analyst price targets imply +23.6% upside for AMZN and +14.5% for META, so the Street currently favors AMZN. 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, AMZN or META?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AMZN or META?
AMZN 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, AMZN or META?
AMZN on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, AMZN or META?
META is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. META on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 AMZN more profitable than META?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.8% vs 81.7%; operating margin 12.1% vs 38.1%; ttm roe 30.5% vs 29.7%. AMZN leads on one measure and META 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 AMZN's lead over META getting stronger or weaker?
AMZN lead: Reversed — META led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AMZN now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when AMZN moved ahead of META.
What would change the AMZN vs META verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: META closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMZN's edge; META generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; AMZN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 AMZN and META?
AMZN: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. META: 3 bullish / 1 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 AMZN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On META it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMZN and META 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.