AZO vs BBY Stock Comparison
Compare AZO and BBY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AZO and BBY?
BBY leads the current stock comparison as Best Buy Co., Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AutoZone, Inc. vs Best Buy Co., Inc.
BBY leads
BBY leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AZO on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BBY, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
AutoZone, Inc.
Best Buy Co., Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BBY over AZO, 61 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. BBY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. BBY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AZO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBY today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BBY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AutoZone, Inc. and Best Buy Co., 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 AZO and BBY 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.
- Momentum17 vs 66BBY +49
- Value37 vs 66BBY +29
- Quality53 vs 61BBY +8
- Risk Resilience44 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BBY. BBY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
BBY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AZO and BBY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BBY (Best Buy Co., Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AZO (AutoZone, Inc.): 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
BBYBBY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AZOAZO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BBYBBY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
BBYBBY on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
AZOAZO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AZOAZO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BBY, analyst targets favor AZO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AZO | BBY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29% | -6.7% | AZO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | +47.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 13 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BBY | 38 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | AZOon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs 9.4%; EPS growth 37.7% vs 13.7%; TTM ROE -80.4% vs 42.8%; gross margin 51.8% vs 22.7%; operating margin 18% vs 4.4% — AZO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BBY | Value 37 vs 66 |
| Technicals | BBY | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs 7.2%; vs 200-day -14.4% vs 22.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | AZO | Target upside 29% vs -6.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AZO and BBY 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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'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 BBY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BBY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BBY +23
- 38 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- BBY +20
- 42 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- BBY +9
- 53 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- BBY +15
- 47 vs 62
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.45%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.17%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.8%)
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.16%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.08%, 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.
- 1AZO closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBY's edge.
- 2AZO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BBY'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
AZO leads on balance| Metric | AZO | BBY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 9.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.7% | 13.7% |
| Gross margin | 51.8% | 22.7% |
| Operating margin | 18% | 4.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -80.4% | 42.8% |
| Debt to equity | -4.54 | 1.3 |
Performance
BBY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AZO | BBY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | 6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.3% | 16.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.4% | 39.5% |
| Year to date | -13.5% | 31.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.5% | 13.5% |
Technicals
BBY has the stronger structure| Metric | AZO | BBY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.7 | 54.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 14.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | 7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.4% | 22.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.5% | 41.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AZO | BBY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.35 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.77 | 0.81 |
| Max drawdown | -33.8% | -33.9% |
| Current drawdown | -33.8% | -2.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.2% | 38.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AZO or BBY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BBY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 61 against AZO's 38. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 AZO or BBY the better buy right now?
BBY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 BBY over AZO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BBY leads Momentum by 49 points; BBY leads Value by 29 points; BBY leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AZO or BBY?
Analyst price targets imply +29% upside for AZO and -6.7% for BBY, so the Street currently favors AZO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BBY. 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, AZO or BBY?
BBY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BBY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, AZO or BBY?
AZO 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, AZO or BBY?
BBY on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, AZO or BBY?
AZO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AZO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AZO more profitable than BBY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.8% vs 22.7%; operating margin 18% vs 4.4%; ttm roe -80.4% vs 42.8%. AZO leads on two measures and BBY on one measure, 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 BBY's lead over AZO getting stronger or weaker?
BBY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 23 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 AZO vs BBY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AZO closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBY's edge; AZO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BBY'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 AZO and BBY?
AZO: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. BBY: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on AZO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On BBY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AZO and BBY 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.