ATO vs AWK Stock Comparison
ATO currently leads AWK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 51. The clearest difference is quality, while AWK has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ATO and AWK?
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
Atmos Energy Corporation vs American Water Works Company, Inc.
ATO leads
ATO leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ATO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Atmos Energy Corporation
American Water Works Company, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ATO over AWK, 57 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. ATO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while AWK holds the stronger momentum profile. ATO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ATO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ATO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Atmos Energy Corporation and American Water Works Company, 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 ATO and AWK 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.
- Quality57 vs 41ATO +16
- Risk Resilience58 vs 48ATO +10
- Momentum74 vs 82AWK +8
- Value41 vs 36ATO +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ATO. ATO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; AWK keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
ATO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ATO and AWK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ATO (Atmos Energy Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
AWK (American Water Works Company, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 27.5% against 19.6%.
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
AWKAWK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ATOATO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
AWKAWK on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
ATOATO on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
ATOATO 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 | ATO | AWK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.7% | -1.5% | ATO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +17.9% | +24.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.97% | 8.60% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.350 | $2.150 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.610 | $3.248 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #123 | #131 |
ATO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.97% a year against AWK's 8.60%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
4 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 | ATO | 57 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | AWKon balance | revenue growth -55.2% vs 12.3%; EPS growth -58.7% vs 59.4%; TTM ROE 9.7% vs 10.2%; gross margin 61% vs 47.2%; operating margin 37% vs 36.9% — AWK takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ATO | Value 41 vs 36 |
| Technicals | AWK | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day -2.7% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | ATO | Risk Resilience 58 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | ATO | Target upside 6.7% vs -1.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ATO and AWK 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ATO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ATO +6
- 57 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- ATO +6
- 57 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- ATO +10
- 47 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- AWK +1
- 47 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when ATO moved ahead of AWK.
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, conflicted
Only ATO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.18%)
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AWK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.32%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.78%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.52%, 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.
- 1AWK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to ATO's edge.
- 2AWK's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ATO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ATO'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
AWK leads on balance| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -55.2% | 12.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -58.7% | 59.4% |
| Gross margin | 61% | 47.2% |
| Operating margin | 37% | 36.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.7% | 10.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.67 | 1.38 |
Performance
AWK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.4% | 8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.7% | 2.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.7% | 5.9% |
| Year to date | 1.1% | 7.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.6% | -1.3% |
Technicals
AWK has the stronger structure| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69 | 74.9 |
| ADX (14) | 34 | 32.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.7% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.6% | 27.5% |
Risk
ATO is the more resilient| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | -0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.35 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.54 | 0.19 |
| Max drawdown | -18.8% | -13.3% |
| Current drawdown | -11.8% | -2.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 16% | 22.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ATO or AWK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ATO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 57 against AWK's 51. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. AWK 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 ATO or AWK the better buy right now?
ATO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ATO over AWK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ATO leads Quality by 16 points; ATO leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; AWK leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ATO or AWK?
Analyst price targets imply +6.7% upside for ATO and -1.5% for AWK, so the Street currently favors ATO. 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, ATO or AWK?
ATO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ATO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, ATO or AWK?
AWK 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, ATO or AWK?
AWK on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, ATO or AWK?
ATO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ATO on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 ATO more profitable than AWK?
ATO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 61% vs 47.2%; operating margin 37% vs 36.9%; ttm roe 9.7% vs 10.2%.
Is ATO's lead over AWK getting stronger or weaker?
ATO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-18, when ATO moved ahead of AWK.
What would change the ATO vs AWK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AWK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to ATO's edge; AWK's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ATO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ATO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ATO and AWK?
ATO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. AWK: 6 bullish / 1 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 ATO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On AWK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ATO and AWK 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.