BAND vs GRMN Stock Comparison
Compare BAND and GRMN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BAND and GRMN?
GRMN leads the current stock comparison as Garmin Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bandwidth Inc. vs Garmin Ltd.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors BAND on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bandwidth Inc.
Garmin Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over BAND, 56 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while BAND holds the stronger momentum profile. GRMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BAND. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GRMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bandwidth Inc. and Garmin Ltd. 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 BAND and GRMN 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.
- Risk Resilience26 vs 81GRMN +55
- Quality25 vs 78GRMN +53
- Momentum55 vs 20BAND +35
- Value55 vs 51BAND +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; BAND 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 +11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
GRMN's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BAND and GRMN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRMN (Garmin Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
BAND (Bandwidth Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 83.7% against 17.4%.
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
GRMNGRMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GRMNGRMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BANDBAND on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
BANDBAND on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
GRMNGRMN on Risk Resilience, by 55 points.
Analyst upside
BANDBAND on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GRMN, analyst targets favor BAND. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BAND | GRMN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.5% | +4.2% | BAND has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.3% | +44.8% | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GRMN | 42 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | GRMN | revenue growth 5.3% vs 15.3%; EPS growth -153.8% vs 33.8%; gross margin 37.2% vs 60.1%; operating margin -1.8% vs 27.6% |
| Valuation | BAND | Value 55 vs 51 |
| Technicals | BAND | Price vs 50-day 3.2% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day 51.1% vs 13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | GRMN | Risk Resilience 26 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | BAND | Target upside 15.5% vs 4.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BAND and GRMN 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GRMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRMN +14
- 42 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- GRMN +22
- 36 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- GRMN +16
- 45 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- GRMN +21
- 48 vs 69
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 / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (61.34%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.99%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.69%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GRMN 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 up over the latest session (price +10.17%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.85%, 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.
- 1BAND closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge.
- 2BAND's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GRMN'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
GRMN leads on balance| Metric | BAND | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 15.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -153.8% | 33.8% |
| Gross margin | 37.2% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | -1.8% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 0.02 |
Performance
BAND leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BAND | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.6% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13% | 17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 229% | 15.3% |
| Year to date | 234.1% | 34.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 228.8% | 13.6% |
Technicals
BAND has the stronger structure| Metric | BAND | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.1 | 16.6 |
| ADX (14) | 13.7 | 25.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.2% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 51.1% | 13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 83.7% | 17.4% |
Risk
GRMN is the more resilient| Metric | BAND | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.11 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.69 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.69 | 0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -52.9% | -28% |
| Current drawdown | -34.2% | -13.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 93.2% | 34.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.7% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BAND or GRMN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRMN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against BAND's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. BAND 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 BAND or GRMN the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRMN over BAND?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRMN leads Risk Resilience by 55 points; GRMN leads Quality by 53 points; BAND leads Momentum by 35 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BAND or GRMN?
Analyst price targets imply +15.5% upside for BAND and +4.2% for GRMN, so the Street currently favors BAND. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GRMN. 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, BAND or GRMN?
BAND is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BAND 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, BAND or GRMN?
GRMN 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, BAND or GRMN?
BAND on the Momentum factor, by 35 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, BAND or GRMN?
GRMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRMN on Risk Resilience, by 55 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 BAND more profitable than GRMN?
GRMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 37.2% vs 60.1%; operating margin -1.8% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 0% vs 21%.
Is GRMN's lead over BAND getting stronger or weaker?
GRMN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 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 BAND vs GRMN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BAND closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge; BAND's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GRMN'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 BAND and GRMN?
BAND: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. GRMN: 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 BAND is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GRMN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BAND and GRMN 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.