APD vs CF Stock Comparison
CF currently leads APD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 51. The clearest difference is quality, while APD has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between APD and CF?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. vs CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
CF leads
CF leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors APD on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CF, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over APD, 66 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while APD holds the stronger momentum profile. CF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors APD. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. and CF Industries Holdings, 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 APD and CF 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.
- Quality25 vs 80CF +55
- Momentum89 vs 57APD +32
- Value40 vs 64CF +24
- Risk Resilience61 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; APD keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum +1
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APD and CF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
APD (Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, 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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
APDAPD on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
APDAPD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
APDAPD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor APD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | APD | CF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.8% | +9.6% | APD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +20.1% | +40.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | APD | CF |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.90% | 10.76% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $5.360 | $1.200 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $7.140 | $2.000 |
| Years increased | 4 | 3 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #82 |
CF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.76% a year against APD's 5.90%. CF never reduced its regular dividend in the window; APD did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CF | 51 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | CF | EPS growth -3% vs 18.8%; gross margin 32.1% vs 42.5%; operating margin -4.7% vs 38.1% |
| Valuation | CF | Value 40 vs 64 |
| Technicals | APD | Price vs 50-day 3.1% vs -5.7%; vs 200-day 5% vs 2.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | APD | Target upside 11.8% vs 9.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APD and CF 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CF +15
- 51 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +18
- 50 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- CF +23
- 34 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +20
- 45 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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only APD
- 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
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CF
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.67%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
APD 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 +0.03%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.38%, 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.
- 1APD closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2APD's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate CF's advantage entirely.
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
CF leads on balance| Metric | APD | CF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.3% | 11.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -3% | 18.8% |
| Gross margin | 32.1% | 42.5% |
| Operating margin | -4.7% | 38.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.3% | 40.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.31 | 0.63 |
Performance
APD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | APD | CF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.7% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.9% | -7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.6% | -2.8% |
| Year to date | 22.5% | 52.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.5% | 42.1% |
Technicals
APD has the stronger structure| Metric | APD | CF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.1 | 57.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 22.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.1% | -5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5% | 2.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 23.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | APD | CF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | -1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | 0.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.04 | 1.52 |
| Max drawdown | -13% | -25.8% |
| Current drawdown | -3.7% | -15.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.3% | 42.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APD or CF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against APD's 51. The edge comes from quality and value. APD is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 APD or CF the better buy right now?
CF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 CF over APD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Quality by 55 points; APD leads Momentum by 32 points; CF leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APD or CF?
Analyst price targets imply +11.8% upside for APD and +9.6% for CF, so the Street currently favors APD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, APD or CF?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, APD or CF?
CF 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, APD or CF?
APD on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, APD or CF?
APD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is APD more profitable than CF?
CF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32.1% vs 42.5%; operating margin -4.7% vs 38.1%; ttm roe -0.3% vs 40.4%.
Is CF's lead over APD getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 15 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 APD vs CF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: APD closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; APD's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate CF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about APD and CF?
APD: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. CF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 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 APD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare APD and CF 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.