AQN vs ATO Stock Comparison
Compare AQN and ATO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AQN and ATO?
ATO leads the current stock comparison as Atmos Energy Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. vs Atmos Energy Corporation
ATO leads
ATO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors AQN on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ATO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.
Atmos Energy Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ATO over AQN, 46 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. ATO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while AQN holds the stronger value profile. ATO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AQN. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ATO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ATO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp. and Atmos Energy 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 AQN and ATO 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.
- Quality32 vs 57ATO +25
- Value59 vs 41AQN +18
- Momentum25 vs 29ATO +4
- Risk Resilience61 vs 61Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ATO. ATO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; AQN 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: Risk Resilience -2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.7%)
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ATO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AQN and ATO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ATO (Atmos Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
AQN (Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
ATOATO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ATOATO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AQNAQN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
ATOATO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ATOATO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AQNAQN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ATO, analyst targets favor AQN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AQN | ATO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.4% | +15.3% | AQN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +11.2% | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ATO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 43 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ATOon balance | revenue growth -31.4% vs -55.2%; EPS growth -98.8% vs -58.7%; TTM ROE 3.2% vs 9.7%; gross margin 45.4% vs 61%; operating margin 20.5% vs 37% — ATO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AQN | Value 59 vs 41 |
| Technicals | ATO | Price vs 50-day -7.7% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day -10.8% vs -5.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AQN | Target upside 22.4% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AQN and ATO 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ATO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ATO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ATO +3
- 43 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ATO +5
- 43 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- ATO +2
- 44 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- ATO +17
- 41 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when ATO moved ahead of AQN.
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 / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.25%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
ATO 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 -2.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.98%, 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.
- 1AQN closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ATO's edge.
- 2AQN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ATO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
ATO leads on balance| Metric | AQN | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -31.4% | -55.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -98.8% | -58.7% |
| Gross margin | 45.4% | 61% |
| Operating margin | 20.5% | 37% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.2% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.44 | 0.67 |
Performance
ATO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AQN | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | -2.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.1% | -2.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.5% | -10.6% |
| Year to date | -9.3% | -1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.6% | 0.6% |
Technicals
ATO has the stronger structure| Metric | AQN | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 20.9 | 34.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.8 | 9.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.7% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.8% | -5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.8% | 13.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AQN | ATO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.31 | -0.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.19 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -22.2% | -14.3% |
| Current drawdown | -22.2% | -14.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.7% | 15.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AQN or ATO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ATO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against AQN's 43. The edge comes from quality and momentum. AQN 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 AQN or ATO the better buy right now?
ATO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ATO over AQN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ATO leads Quality by 25 points; AQN leads Value by 18 points; ATO leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AQN or ATO?
Analyst price targets imply +22.4% upside for AQN and +15.3% for ATO, so the Street currently favors AQN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ATO. 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, AQN or ATO?
AQN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AQN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, AQN or ATO?
ATO 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, AQN or ATO?
ATO on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, AQN or ATO?
ATO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ATO 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 AQN more profitable than ATO?
ATO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.4% vs 61%; operating margin 20.5% vs 37%; ttm roe 3.2% vs 9.7%.
Is ATO's lead over AQN getting stronger or weaker?
ATO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when ATO moved ahead of AQN.
What would change the AQN vs ATO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AQN closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to ATO's edge; AQN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ATO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 AQN and ATO?
AQN: 2 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted. ATO: 1 bullish / 3 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 AQN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ATO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AQN and ATO 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.