ANF vs WHR Stock Comparison
ANF currently leads WHR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 73 vs 35. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ANF and WHR?
ANF leads the current stock comparison as Abercrombie & Fitch Co., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abercrombie & Fitch Co. vs Whirlpool Corporation
ANF leads
ANF leads by 38 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 26 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WHR on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ANF, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Abercrombie & Fitch Co.
Whirlpool Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANF over WHR, 73 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. ANF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. ANF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WHR. 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 38 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Abercrombie & Fitch Co. and Whirlpool Corporation 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 ANF and WHR 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.
- Quality84 vs 12ANF +72
- Momentum84 vs 28ANF +56
- Risk Resilience56 vs 41ANF +15
- Value60 vs 62Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ANF. ANF’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 9 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ANF's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ANF and WHR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANF (Abercrombie & Fitch Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WHR (Whirlpool Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 39.9% against 31.4%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
ANFANF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ANFANF on the Momentum factor, by 56 points.
Lower downside
ANFANF on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
WHRWHR 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 WHR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ANF | WHR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -15.2% | +48.7% | WHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +80.5% | +83.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 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
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 | 73 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | ANF | revenue growth 13.7% vs 7.5%; EPS growth 181.9% vs 180.4%; TTM ROE 39.6% vs 5.8%; gross margin 62.9% vs 13.5%; operating margin 13.7% vs 3.6% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 60 vs 62 |
| Technicals | ANF | Price vs 50-day 18% vs -23.7%; vs 200-day 57.1% vs -44.7% |
| Risk Resilience | ANF | Risk Resilience 56 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WHR | Target upside -15.2% vs 48.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ANF and WHR 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 38 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20ANF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 38 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ANF +38
- 73 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- ANF +37
- 72 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- ANF +26
- 60 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- ANF +23
- 65 vs 42
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ANF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.48%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WHR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (45.80%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -1.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.39%, 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.
- 1WHR closes the Quality gap — currently 72 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANF's edge.
- 2WHR'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 2 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
ANF leads on balance| Metric | ANF | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.7% | 7.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 181.9% | 180.4% |
| Gross margin | 62.9% | 13.5% |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 3.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 39.6% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 2.05 |
Performance
ANF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ANF | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.2% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 18.7% | -16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 68.4% | -24.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 69.8% | -50.7% |
| Year to date | 28.5% | -61.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 130.5% | -61.2% |
Technicals
ANF has the stronger structure| Metric | ANF | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 89 | 32.9 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 48.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 18% | -23.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 57.1% | -44.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.4% | 39.9% |
Risk
ANF is the more resilient| Metric | ANF | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.48 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.05 | -2.54 |
| Max drawdown | -45.6% | -71.5% |
| Current drawdown | -0.2% | -69.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 71.6% | 49.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ANF or WHR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 73 against WHR's 35. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 WHR the better buy right now?
ANF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 WHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ANF leads Quality by 72 points; ANF leads Momentum by 56 points; ANF leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ANF or WHR?
Analyst price targets imply -15.2% upside for ANF and +48.7% for WHR, so the Street currently favors WHR. 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 WHR?
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, ANF or WHR?
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 WHR?
ANF on the Momentum factor, by 56 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, ANF or WHR?
ANF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANF on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 ANF more profitable than WHR?
ANF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.9% vs 13.5%; operating margin 13.7% vs 3.6%; ttm roe 39.6% vs 5.8%.
Is ANF's lead over WHR getting stronger or weaker?
ANF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 38 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 ANF vs WHR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WHR closes the Quality gap — currently 72 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANF's edge; WHR'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 2 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 ANF and WHR?
ANF: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WHR: 1 bullish / 2 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 ANF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WHR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ANF and WHR 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.