ATO vs AWK Stock Comparison
Compare ATO and AWK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ATO and AWK?
AWK leads the current stock comparison as American Water Works Company, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Atmos Energy Corporation vs American Water Works Company, Inc.
AWK leads
AWK leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum. Wall Street currently favors ATO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AWK, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Atmos Energy Corporation
American Water Works Company, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AWK over ATO, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. AWK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while ATO holds the stronger quality profile. AWK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ATO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AWK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AWK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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
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 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.
- Momentum29 vs 69AWK +40
- Quality57 vs 41ATO +16
- Risk Resilience61 vs 51ATO +10
- Value41 vs 36ATO +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AWK. AWK’s edge is concentrated in momentum; ATO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
AWK's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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
AWK (American Water Works Company, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
ATO (Atmos Energy Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, value.
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
AWKAWK 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 40 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
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AWK, analyst targets favor ATO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ATO | AWK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.3% | -1.3% | ATO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.2% | +19.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AWK. 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 | 46 vs 48 |
| 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 -5.3% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -5.4% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | ATO | Risk Resilience 61 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | ATO | Target upside 15.3% vs -1.3% |
✓ 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 narrow at 2 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'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 AWK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AWK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AWK +2
- 46 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- AWK +1
- 48 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- AWK +1
- 46 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- ATO +8
- 58 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when AWK moved ahead of ATO.
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 / 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
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
ATO 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.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.54%, 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.
- 1ATO closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to AWK's edge.
- 2ATO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AWK'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
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) | -1.7% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.8% | 3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.6% | 10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.6% | 4.1% |
| Year to date | -1% | 7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.6% | -0.1% |
Technicals
AWK has the stronger structure| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.6 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 9.5 | 15.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.4% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.1% | 20% |
Risk
ATO is the more resilient| Metric | ATO | AWK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.16 | -0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | -0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.22 | -0.12 |
| Max drawdown | -14.3% | -16.7% |
| Current drawdown | -14.3% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 15.6% | 22.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.2% |
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, AWK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against ATO's 46. The edge comes from momentum. ATO is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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?
AWK 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AWK over ATO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AWK leads Momentum by 40 points; ATO leads Quality by 16 points; ATO leads Risk Resilience by 10 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 +15.3% upside for ATO and -1.3% for AWK, so the Street currently favors ATO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AWK. 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, 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 40 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 AWK's lead over ATO getting stronger or weaker?
AWK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when AWK moved ahead of ATO.
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: ATO closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to AWK's edge; ATO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AWK'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 ATO and AWK?
ATO: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AWK: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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.