ARLO vs WSC Stock Comparison
Compare ARLO and WSC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARLO and WSC?
ARLO leads the current stock comparison as Arlo Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arlo Technologies, Inc. vs WillScot Holdings Corporation
ARLO leads
ARLO leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors WSC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ARLO, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Arlo Technologies, Inc.
WillScot Holdings Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARLO over WSC, 59 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. ARLO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. ARLO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WSC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARLO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. ARLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions. ARLO 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 Arlo Technologies, Inc. and WillScot Holdings 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 ARLO and WSC 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.
- Quality71 vs 22ARLO +49
- Momentum41 vs 25ARLO +16
- Risk Resilience41 vs 32ARLO +9
- Value70 vs 66ARLO +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ARLO. ARLO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +3
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ARLO's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARLO and WSC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARLO (Arlo Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WSC (WillScot Holdings Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
ARLOARLO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WSCWSC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ARLOARLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
ARLOARLO on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
ARLOARLO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
WSCWSC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ARLO, analyst targets favor WSC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARLO | WSC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41.5% | +43.6% | WSC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.1% | +18.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | 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 ARLO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ARLO | 59 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | WSCon balance | revenue growth 3.7% vs 11.6%; EPS growth -78.6% vs 62.5%; TTM ROE 21.2% vs -7.5%; gross margin 46% vs 48.4%; operating margin 2.7% vs 20.2% — WSC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ARLO | Value 70 vs 66 |
| Technicals | ARLO | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -22%; vs 200-day -4.3% vs -16.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ARLO | Risk Resilience 41 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | WSC | Target upside 41.5% vs 43.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARLO and WSC 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ARLO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ARLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARLO +22
- 59 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- ARLO +28
- 65 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- ARLO +20
- 60 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- ARLO +20
- 59 vs 39
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.47%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.91%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.95%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
WSC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.46%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.13%, 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.
- 1WSC closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARLO's edge.
- 2WSC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ARLO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
WSC leads on balance| Metric | ARLO | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.7% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -78.6% | 62.5% |
| Gross margin | 46% | 48.4% |
| Operating margin | 2.7% | 20.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.2% | -7.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 4.17 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ARLO | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | -15.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | -29.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.2% | -3.3% |
| Year to date | -7.1% | -0.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.1% | -19.5% |
Technicals
ARLO has the stronger structure| Metric | ARLO | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.5 | 20.4 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 33.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -22% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.3% | -16.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.5% | 40.8% |
Risk
ARLO is the more resilient| Metric | ARLO | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.51 | 1.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.39 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.61 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -42.2% | -36.4% |
| Current drawdown | -33.1% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 52.5% | 52% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.1% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARLO or WSC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARLO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against WSC's 37. 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 ARLO or WSC the better buy right now?
ARLO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 ARLO over WSC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ARLO leads Quality by 49 points; ARLO leads Momentum by 16 points; ARLO leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. ARLO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WSC 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, ARLO or WSC?
Analyst price targets imply +41.5% upside for ARLO and +43.6% for WSC, so the Street currently favors WSC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ARLO. 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, ARLO or WSC?
ARLO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ARLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, ARLO or WSC?
WSC 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, ARLO or WSC?
ARLO on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, ARLO or WSC?
ARLO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARLO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 ARLO more profitable than WSC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46% vs 48.4%; operating margin 2.7% vs 20.2%; ttm roe 21.2% vs -7.5%. ARLO leads on one measure and WSC on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is ARLO's lead over WSC getting stronger or weaker?
ARLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 22 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 ARLO vs WSC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WSC closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARLO's edge; WSC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ARLO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 ARLO and WSC?
ARLO: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. WSC: 2 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 ARLO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WSC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARLO and WSC 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.