ANF vs VFC Stock Comparison
Compare ANF and VFC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ANF and VFC?
ANF leads the current stock comparison as Abercrombie & Fitch Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. vs V.F. Corporation
ANF leads
ANF leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors VFC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ANF, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
V.F. Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANF over VFC, 71 versus 42 as of Sep 6, 2026. ANF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while VFC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ANF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VFC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ANF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 29 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and V.F. 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 ANF and VFC 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.
- Momentum25%85 vs 27ANF +58
- Quality30%84 vs 41ANF +43
- Value30%60 vs 48ANF +12
- Risk Resilience15%43 vs 54VFC +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ANF. ANF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; VFC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ANF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ANF and VFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANF (Abercrombie & Fitch Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
VFC (V.F. Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
ANFANF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ANFANF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ANFANF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
ANFANF on the Momentum factor, by 58 points.
Lower downside
VFCVFC on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
VFCVFC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ANF, analyst targets favor VFC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ANF | VFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -10.7% | +46.2% | VFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +81.6% | +40.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | 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 ANF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ANF | 71 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | ANF | revenue growth 13.7% vs -22.9%; EPS growth 181.9% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE 39.6% vs 15.9%; gross margin 62.9% vs 54.6%; operating margin 13.7% vs 6.1% |
| Valuation | ANF | Value 60 vs 48 |
| Technicals | ANF | Price vs 50-day 39.3% vs -12.9%; vs 200-day 54.2% vs -23.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VFC | Risk Resilience 43 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | VFC | Target upside -10.7% vs 46.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ANF and VFC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 ANF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ANF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ANF +29
- 71 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- ANF +31
- 72 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- ANF +28
- 68 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- ANF +25
- 66 vs 41
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.69%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
ANF 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 +4.27%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.36%, 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.
- 1VFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANF's edge.
- 2VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
ANF leads on balance| Metric | ANF | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -22.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 181.9% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 62.9% | 54.6% |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 6.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 39.6% | 15.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 2.81 |
Performance
ANF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ANF | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 32.9% | -10.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 87.2% | -18.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 62.4% | -22.3% |
| Year to date | 18.9% | -25.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 58.6% | -9.2% |
Technicals
ANF has the stronger structure| Metric | ANF | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 76.7 | 32.9 |
| ADX (14) | 36.5 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 39.3% | -12.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 54.2% | -23.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 136% | 27.8% |
Risk
VFC is the more resilient| Metric | ANF | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.08 | 1.66 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | -0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.92 | -0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -45.6% | -39.3% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -37.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.2% | 49% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ANF or VFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 71 against VFC's 42. The edge comes from momentum and quality. VFC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 ANF or VFC the better buy right now?
ANF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ANF over VFC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ANF leads Momentum by 58 points; ANF leads Quality by 43 points; ANF leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ANF or VFC?
Analyst price targets imply -10.7% upside for ANF and +46.2% for VFC, so the Street currently favors VFC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ANF. 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, ANF or VFC?
ANF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ANF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, ANF or VFC?
ANF 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, ANF or VFC?
ANF on the Momentum factor, by 58 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, ANF or VFC?
VFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VFC on Risk Resilience, by 11 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ANF more profitable than VFC?
ANF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.9% vs 54.6%; operating margin 13.7% vs 6.1%; ttm roe 39.6% vs 15.9%.
Is ANF's lead over VFC getting stronger or weaker?
ANF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 29 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ANF vs VFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VFC closes the Momentum gap — currently 58 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANF's edge; VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ANF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ANF and VFC?
ANF: 6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VFC: 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 ANF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VFC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ANF and VFC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.