BBWI vs CHWY Stock Comparison
Compare BBWI and CHWY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BBWI and CHWY?
BBWI leads the current stock comparison as Bath & Body Works, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bath & Body Works, Inc. vs Chewy, Inc.
BBWI leads
BBWI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CHWY. Wall Street currently favors CHWY on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BBWI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bath & Body Works, Inc.
Chewy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BBWI over CHWY, 48 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. BBWI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while CHWY holds the stronger quality profile. BBWI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CHWY. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBWI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BBWI lead: Reversed — CHWY led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BBWI now leads by 4.
Compare Bath & Body Works, Inc. and Chewy, 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 BBWI and CHWY 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.
- Value72 vs 42BBWI +30
- Quality50 vs 66CHWY +16
- Risk Resilience24 vs 35CHWY +11
- Momentum30 vs 26BBWI +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BBWI. BBWI’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; CHWY 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 -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
BBWI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BBWI and CHWY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BBWI (Bath & Body Works, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
CHWY (Chewy, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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
BBWIBBWI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CHWYCHWY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BBWIBBWI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
BBWIBBWI on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CHWYCHWY on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
CHWYCHWY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BBWI, analyst targets favor CHWY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BBWI | CHWY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.5% | +62.5% | CHWY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.8% | +72.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBWI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BBWI | 48 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | BBWIon balance | TTM ROE -61.8% vs 44.8%; gross margin 44.1% vs 29.7%; operating margin 16.7% vs 1.7% — BBWI takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BBWI | Value 72 vs 42 |
| Technicals | BBWI | Price vs 50-day -6% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day -12.9% vs -17.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CHWY | Risk Resilience 24 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | CHWY | Target upside 18.5% vs 62.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BBWI and CHWY 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 BBWI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BBWI lead: Reversed — CHWY led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BBWI now leads by 4.
- Today
- BBWI +4
- 48 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- CHWY +3
- 52 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- CHWY +7
- 50 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- BBWI +2
- 55 vs 53
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when BBWI moved ahead of CHWY.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
BBWI 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 +6.42%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.04%, 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.
- 1CHWY closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBWI's edge.
- 2CHWY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BBWI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
BBWI leads on balance| Metric | BBWI | CHWY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -36.3% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 44.1% | 29.7% |
| Operating margin | 16.7% | 1.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -61.8% | 44.8% |
| Debt to equity | -4.5 | 1.14 |
Performance
BBWI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BBWI | CHWY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.8% | -12.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.8% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 5.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13% | -18% |
| Year to date | -13.1% | -36.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.7% | -49.4% |
Technicals
BBWI has the stronger structure| Metric | BBWI | CHWY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.3 | 32.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.3 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.9% | -17.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.7% | 54.9% |
Risk
CHWY is the more resilient| Metric | BBWI | CHWY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.38 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.59 | -1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.81 | -1.74 |
| Max drawdown | -47.4% | -58.4% |
| Current drawdown | -38.2% | -49.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.6% | 49.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BBWI or CHWY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BBWI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against CHWY's 44. The edge comes from value and momentum. CHWY 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 BBWI or CHWY the better buy right now?
BBWI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BBWI over CHWY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BBWI leads Value by 30 points; CHWY leads Quality by 16 points; CHWY leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BBWI or CHWY?
Analyst price targets imply +18.5% upside for BBWI and +62.5% for CHWY, so the Street currently favors CHWY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BBWI. 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, BBWI or CHWY?
BBWI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BBWI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, BBWI or CHWY?
CHWY 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, BBWI or CHWY?
BBWI on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, BBWI or CHWY?
CHWY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHWY on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 BBWI more profitable than CHWY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 44.1% vs 29.7%; operating margin 16.7% vs 1.7%; ttm roe -61.8% vs 44.8%. BBWI leads on two measures and CHWY 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 BBWI's lead over CHWY getting stronger or weaker?
BBWI lead: Reversed — CHWY led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BBWI now leads by 4. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when BBWI moved ahead of CHWY.
What would change the BBWI vs CHWY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHWY closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBWI's edge; CHWY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BBWI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 BBWI and CHWY?
BBWI: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CHWY: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 BBWI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHWY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BBWI and CHWY 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.