CAVA vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare CAVA and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CAVA and XLK?
XLK leads the current stock comparison as State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CAVA Group, Inc. vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CAVA Group, Inc.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over CAVA, 59 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. XLK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 29 points over 30 sessions. XLK leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare CAVA Group, Inc. and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 CAVA and XLK 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.
- Momentum21 vs 65XLK +44
- Quality38 vs 74XLK +36
- Risk Resilience38 vs 62XLK +24
- Value24 vs 36XLK +12
4 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
XLK's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAVA and XLK both carry a full feed there.
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
XLKXLK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
XLKXLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CAVA | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +63.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +39.4% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLK | 30 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | XLK | Value 24 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day -21.2% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 38 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CAVA and XLK 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 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 XLK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLK +29
- 30 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +26
- 30 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +17
- 42 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +10
- 33 vs 43
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.27%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CAVA 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 +3.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, 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.
- 1CAVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2CAVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLK'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
Split| Metric | CAVA | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -15.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | — |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 6.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.3% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | — |
Performance
XLK leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CAVA | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.6% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.3% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.8% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -32.4% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | -8% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.4% | 39.9% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | CAVA | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 13.7 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.2% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.6% | 20.6% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | CAVA | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.4 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.17 | 1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -44.5% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -44.5% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CAVA or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against CAVA's 30. 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 CAVA or XLK the better buy right now?
XLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 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 XLK over CAVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLK leads Momentum by 44 points; XLK leads Quality by 36 points; XLK leads Risk Resilience by 24 points. XLK leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CAVA simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CAVA or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +63.6% upside for CAVA and not covered for XLK. 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, CAVA or XLK?
XLK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XLK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, CAVA or XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CAVA or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, CAVA or XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 CAVA more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLK's lead over CAVA getting stronger or weaker?
XLK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 29 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 CAVA vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge; CAVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XLK'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 CAVA and XLK?
CAVA: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 CAVA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.