BLDR vs PWR Stock Comparison
BLDR currently leads PWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 35. The clearest difference is value, while PWR has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between BLDR and PWR?
BLDR leads the current stock comparison as Builders FirstSource, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Builders FirstSource, Inc. vs Quanta Services, Inc.
BLDR leads
BLDR leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from PWR.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BLDR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Builders FirstSource, Inc.
Quanta Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BLDR over PWR, 44 versus 35 as of Oct 22, 2026. BLDR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while PWR holds the stronger quality profile. BLDR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLDR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. BLDR lead: Reversed — PWR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDR now leads by 9.
Compare Builders FirstSource, Inc. and Quanta Services, 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 BLDR and PWR 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.
- Value71 vs 37BLDR +34
- Momentum35 vs 17BLDR +18
- Quality26 vs 41PWR +15
- Risk Resilience44 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BLDR. BLDR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; PWR keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
BLDR's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BLDR and PWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BLDR (Builders FirstSource, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
PWR (Quanta Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
BLDRBLDR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PWRPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BLDRBLDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
BLDRBLDR on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
BLDRBLDR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
BLDRBLDR 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 | BLDR | PWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +58.5% | +29.9% | BLDR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +77.8% | +37.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLDR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BLDR | 44 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | PWRon balance | revenue growth 17.5% vs 21.4%; EPS growth 90.7% vs 104.8%; TTM ROE 2.5% vs 14.9%; gross margin 29.2% vs 14.4%; operating margin 3% vs 6.2% — PWR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BLDR | Value 71 vs 37 |
| Technicals | PWR | Price vs 50-day -12.9% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -34.7% vs -0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | BLDR | Target upside 58.5% vs 29.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BLDR and PWR 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 BLDR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BLDR lead: Reversed — PWR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDR now leads by 9.
- Today
- BLDR +9
- 44 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- BLDR +2
- 42 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- PWR +9
- 43 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- PWR +9
- 44 vs 53
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when BLDR moved ahead of PWR.
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
Only BLDR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (34.34%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PWR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.52%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
BLDR 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.76%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.86%, 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.
- 1PWR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLDR's edge.
- 2PWR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3BLDR'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
PWR leads on balance| Metric | BLDR | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.5% | 21.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 90.7% | 104.8% |
| Gross margin | 29.2% | 14.4% |
| Operating margin | 3% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.5% | 14.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.31 | 0.69 |
Performance
PWR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BLDR | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.3% | -12.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.4% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.1% | -7.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -39.9% | 4.5% |
| Year to date | -47.6% | 41.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -56.1% | 39.3% |
Technicals
PWR has the stronger structure| Metric | BLDR | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 40.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.9% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.7% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 39.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BLDR | PWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.63 | 1.67 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.48 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.85 | 1.46 |
| Max drawdown | -60.8% | -28.5% |
| Current drawdown | -58.2% | -24.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.9% | 44.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BLDR or PWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BLDR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 44 against PWR's 35. The edge comes from value and momentum. PWR 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 BLDR or PWR the better buy right now?
BLDR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 BLDR over PWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BLDR leads Value by 34 points; BLDR leads Momentum by 18 points; PWR leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BLDR or PWR?
Analyst price targets imply +58.5% upside for BLDR and +29.9% for PWR, so the Street currently favors BLDR. 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, BLDR or PWR?
BLDR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BLDR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, BLDR or PWR?
PWR 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, BLDR or PWR?
BLDR on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, BLDR or PWR?
BLDR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BLDR 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 BLDR more profitable than PWR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29.2% vs 14.4%; operating margin 3% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 2.5% vs 14.9%. BLDR leads on one measure and PWR on two measures, 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 BLDR's lead over PWR getting stronger or weaker?
BLDR lead: Reversed — PWR led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDR now leads by 9. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when BLDR moved ahead of PWR.
What would change the BLDR vs PWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PWR closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLDR's edge; PWR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; BLDR'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 BLDR and PWR?
BLDR: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PWR: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 BLDR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PWR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BLDR and PWR 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.