BWXT vs UEC Stock Comparison
Compare BWXT and UEC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BWXT and UEC?
UEC leads the current stock comparison as Uranium Energy Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BWX Technologies, Inc. vs Uranium Energy Corp.
UEC leads
UEC leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support UEC.
BWX Technologies, Inc.
Uranium Energy Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UEC over BWXT, 48 versus 41 as of Sep 6, 2026. UEC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. UEC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UEC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. UEC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BWX Technologies, Inc. and Uranium Energy Corp. 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 BWXT and UEC 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.
- Momentum25%34 vs 57UEC +23
- Quality30%45 vs 49UEC +4
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 56Even
- Value30%36 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor UEC. UEC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
UEC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BWXT and UEC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UEC (Uranium Energy Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BWXT (BWX Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
UECUEC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
BWXTBWXT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UECUEC on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
BWXTBWXT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
UECUEC 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 | BWXT | UEC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33% | +59.9% | UEC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.5% | +82.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | 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 UEC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UEC | 41 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | BWXTon balance | revenue growth 4.7% vs -100%; EPS growth -2% vs -281.9%; TTM ROE 27.9% vs -8.1%; gross margin 22.1% vs 42.3%; operating margin 9.7% vs -6.3% — BWXT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 34 |
| Technicals | UEC | Price vs 50-day -7.9% vs 6.7%; vs 200-day -18.2% vs -13% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | UEC | Target upside 33% vs 59.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BWXT and UEC 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 UEC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5UEC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UEC +7
- 41 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- UEC +9
- 39 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- UEC +8
- 43 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- UEC +3
- 41 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 28 when BWXT moved ahead of UEC.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.65%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.92%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.70%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.74%)
BWXT 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 -1.66%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.26%, 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.
- 1BWXT closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UEC's edge.
- 2BWXT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UEC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
BWXT leads on balance| Metric | BWXT | UEC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.7% | -100% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2% | -281.9% |
| Gross margin | 22.1% | 42.3% |
| Operating margin | 9.7% | -6.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 27.9% | -8.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.51 | 0 |
Performance
UEC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BWXT | UEC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | -6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.2% | 2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.3% | -8.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19.3% | -10.8% |
| Year to date | -8.8% | -1.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.1% | 0.9% |
Technicals
UEC has the stronger structure| Metric | BWXT | UEC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.3 | 52.7 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.9% | 6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.2% | -13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.8% | 76.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | BWXT | UEC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.96 | 2.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -37.3% | -55.1% |
| Current drawdown | -33.9% | -42.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.9% | 79.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -7.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BWXT or UEC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UEC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 48 against BWXT's 41. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 BWXT or UEC the better buy right now?
UEC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 UEC over BWXT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UEC leads Momentum by 23 points; UEC leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BWXT or UEC?
Analyst price targets imply +33% upside for BWXT and +59.9% for UEC, so the Street currently favors UEC. 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, BWXT or UEC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, BWXT or UEC?
BWXT 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, BWXT or UEC?
UEC on the Momentum factor, by 23 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BWXT or UEC?
BWXT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BWXT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BWXT more profitable than UEC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 22.1% vs 42.3%; operating margin 9.7% vs -6.3%; ttm roe 27.9% vs -8.1%. BWXT leads on two measures and UEC 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 UEC's lead over BWXT getting stronger or weaker?
UEC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-28, when BWXT moved ahead of UEC.
What would change the BWXT vs UEC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BWXT closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to UEC's edge; BWXT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UEC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BWXT and UEC?
BWXT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UEC: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 BWXT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UEC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BWXT and UEC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.