ARES vs AXP Stock Comparison
Compare ARES and AXP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARES and AXP?
AXP leads the current stock comparison as American Express Company, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ares Management Corporation vs American Express Company
AXP leads
AXP leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AXP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ares Management Corporation
American Express Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AXP over ARES, 49 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. AXP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. AXP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AXP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 18 points over 30 sessions. AXP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Ares Management Corporation and American Express Company 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 ARES and AXP 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.
- Risk Resilience39 vs 73AXP +34
- Quality43 vs 68AXP +25
- Value24 vs 39AXP +15
- Momentum21 vs 25AXP +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AXP. AXP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -22
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
AXP's lead widened by 7 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARES and AXP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AXP (American Express Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
ARES (Ares Management Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 33.9% against 16.9%.
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
AXPAXP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AXPAXP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AXPAXP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
AXPAXP on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
AXPAXP on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
AXPAXP 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 | ARES | AXP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12% | +14.2% | AXP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.1% | +27% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AXP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AXP | 31 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | AXP | revenue growth -6.8% vs 3.4%; EPS growth -5.8% vs 6.1%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 34.1%; gross margin 62.7% vs 84.3%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.2% |
| Valuation | AXP | Value 24 vs 39 |
| Technicals | ARES | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -4.6%; vs 200-day -1.8% vs -4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AXP | Risk Resilience 39 vs 73 |
| Analyst expectations | AXP | Target upside 12% vs 14.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARES and AXP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 AXP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AXP +18
- 31 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AXP +9
- 41 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- AXP +10
- 45 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- AXP +31
- 32 vs 63
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.
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.41%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.07%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AXP 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.77%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.24%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1ARES closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AXP's edge.
- 2ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AXP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
AXP leads on balance| Metric | ARES | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.8% | 6.1% |
| Gross margin | 62.7% | 84.3% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 27.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 34.1% |
| Debt to equity | 3.75 | 1.72 |
Performance
AXP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ARES | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.8% | 2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.3% | 4.8% |
| Year to date | -19.2% | -13.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.9% | -1.4% |
Technicals
ARES has the stronger structure| Metric | ARES | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.8 | 35 |
| ADX (14) | 22.5 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.8% | -4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.9% | 16.9% |
Risk
AXP is the more resilient| Metric | ARES | AXP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | -0.06 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.74 | -0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -47.8% | -24.1% |
| Current drawdown | -29.3% | -16.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.4% | 26.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARES or AXP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AXP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against ARES's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 ARES or AXP the better buy right now?
AXP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AXP over ARES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AXP leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; AXP leads Quality by 25 points; AXP leads Value by 15 points. AXP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ARES simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, ARES or AXP?
Analyst price targets imply +12% upside for ARES and +14.2% for AXP, so the Street currently favors AXP. 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, ARES or AXP?
AXP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AXP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, ARES or AXP?
AXP 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, ARES or AXP?
AXP 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, ARES or AXP?
AXP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AXP on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 ARES more profitable than AXP?
AXP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.7% vs 84.3%; operating margin 23.2% vs 27.2%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 34.1%.
Is AXP's lead over ARES getting stronger or weaker?
AXP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARES vs AXP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARES closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to AXP's edge; ARES's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AXP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 ARES and AXP?
ARES: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AXP: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 ARES is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On AXP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARES and AXP 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.