ATI vs TDY Stock Comparison
Compare ATI and TDY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ATI and TDY?
TDY leads the current stock comparison as Teledyne Technologies Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ATI Inc. vs Teledyne Technologies Incorporated
TDY leads
TDY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TDY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ATI Inc.
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TDY over ATI, 49 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. TDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ATI holds the stronger momentum profile. TDY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TDY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ATI Inc. and Teledyne Technologies Incorporated 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 ATI and TDY 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.
- Value27 vs 59TDY +32
- Momentum33 vs 13ATI +20
- Risk Resilience61 vs 78TDY +17
- Quality50 vs 54TDY +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TDY. TDY’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ATI keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum -15
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
TDY's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ATI and TDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TDY (Teledyne Technologies Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ATI (ATI Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 33.5% against 17%.
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
TDYTDY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ATIATI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TDYTDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
ATIATI on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
TDYTDY on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
TDYTDY 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 | ATI | TDY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.5% | +16.2% | TDY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.6% | +52% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TDY | 40 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | ATIon balance | revenue growth 9.5% vs 6.6%; EPS growth 27.6% vs 10.7%; TTM ROE 26.6% vs 9.1%; gross margin 23.4% vs 39%; operating margin 15.3% vs 19.4% — ATI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TDY | Value 27 vs 59 |
| Technicals | ATI | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -6.2%; vs 200-day 25.3% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | TDY | Risk Resilience 61 vs 78 |
| Analyst expectations | TDY | Target upside 9.5% vs 16.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ATI and TDY 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 moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 TDY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TDY +9
- 40 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- TDY +5
- 43 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TDY +5
- 51 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- TDY +22
- 41 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (26.68%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.07%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.62%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TDY 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.12%, AIQ -5 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.22%, 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.
- 1ATI closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TDY's edge.
- 2ATI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3TDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ATI leads on balance| Metric | ATI | TDY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.5% | 6.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 27.6% | 10.7% |
| Gross margin | 23.4% | 39% |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | 19.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.6% | 9.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.17 | 0.19 |
Performance
ATI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ATI | TDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.6% | -13.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.5% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26.4% | -9% |
| Year to date | 73.4% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 156.8% | 9.2% |
Technicals
ATI has the stronger structure| Metric | ATI | TDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 23.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 34.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -6.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25.3% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.5% | 17% |
Risk
TDY is the more resilient| Metric | ATI | TDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.7 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.45 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.51 | 0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -18.6% | -18.4% |
| Current drawdown | -14.1% | -13.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 42% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ATI or TDY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TDY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against ATI's 40. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ATI 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 ATI or TDY the better buy right now?
TDY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 TDY over ATI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TDY leads Value by 32 points; ATI leads Momentum by 20 points; TDY leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ATI or TDY?
Analyst price targets imply +9.5% upside for ATI and +16.2% for TDY, so the Street currently favors TDY. 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, ATI or TDY?
TDY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, ATI or TDY?
ATI 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, ATI or TDY?
ATI on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, ATI or TDY?
TDY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TDY on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 ATI more profitable than TDY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 23.4% vs 39%; operating margin 15.3% vs 19.4%; ttm roe 26.6% vs 9.1%. ATI leads on one measure and TDY 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 TDY's lead over ATI getting stronger or weaker?
TDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 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 ATI vs TDY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ATI closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to TDY's edge; ATI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; TDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ATI and TDY?
ATI: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TDY: 2 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 ATI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TDY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ATI and TDY 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.