CE vs SHW Stock Comparison
Compare CE and SHW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CE and SHW?
SHW leads the current stock comparison as The Sherwin-Williams Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Celanese Corporation vs The Sherwin-Williams Company
SHW leads
SHW leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CE on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SHW, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Celanese Corporation
The Sherwin-Williams Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SHW over CE, 44 versus 41 as of Sep 6, 2026. SHW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CE holds the stronger value profile. SHW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CE. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SHW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Celanese Corporation and The Sherwin-Williams Company 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 CE and SHW 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.
- Quality30%9 vs 62SHW +53
- Value30%73 vs 41CE +32
- Momentum25%41 vs 18CE +23
- Risk Resilience15%41 vs 56SHW +15
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SHW. SHW’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CE keeps a meaningful value edge.
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.
SHW's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CE and SHW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SHW (The Sherwin-Williams Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CE (Celanese Corporation): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 39% against 20.3%.
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
SHWSHW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CECE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CECE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
CECE on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
SHWSHW on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
CECE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SHW, analyst targets favor CE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CE | SHW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.8% | +14.4% | CE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40% | +23.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 10 | 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 SHW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 41 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | SHWon balance | revenue growth 17.8% vs 19.8%; EPS growth 185% vs 58.3%; TTM ROE -28.8% vs 62.1%; gross margin 20.2% vs 49.1%; operating margin -7% vs 16.4% — SHW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CE | Value 73 vs 41 |
| Technicals | SHW | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -11.9% vs -0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SHW | Risk Resilience 41 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | CE | Target upside 39.8% vs 14.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CE and SHW 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 SHW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5SHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SHW +3
- 41 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- SHW +1
- 42 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- SHW +14
- 42 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- SHW +23
- 37 vs 60
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when SHW moved ahead of CE.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.65%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SHW 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 -1.17%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.44%, 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.
- 1CE closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHW's edge.
- 2CE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate SHW's advantage entirely.
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
SHW leads on balance| Metric | CE | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.8% | 19.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 185% | 58.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 49.1% |
| Operating margin | -7% | 16.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -28.8% | 62.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2.96 | 3.69 |
Performance
CE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CE | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.8% | -9.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.5% | 9.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.4% | 1.2% |
| Year to date | 5.7% | 3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.1% | -8.1% |
Technicals
SHW has the stronger structure| Metric | CE | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.7 | 33.1 |
| ADX (14) | 13.3 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.9% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39% | 20.3% |
Risk
SHW is the more resilient| Metric | CE | SHW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.63 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | -0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.2 | -0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -37.7% | -21.9% |
| Current drawdown | -35.5% | -11.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.4% | 27.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CE or SHW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SHW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 44 against CE's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CE is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CE or SHW the better buy right now?
SHW 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SHW over CE?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SHW leads Quality by 53 points; CE leads Value by 32 points; CE leads Momentum by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CE or SHW?
Analyst price targets imply +39.8% upside for CE and +14.4% for SHW, so the Street currently favors CE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SHW. 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, CE or SHW?
CE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, CE or SHW?
CE 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, CE or SHW?
CE 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, CE or SHW?
SHW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SHW on Risk Resilience, by 15 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CE more profitable than SHW?
SHW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.2% vs 49.1%; operating margin -7% vs 16.4%; ttm roe -28.8% vs 62.1%.
Is SHW's lead over CE getting stronger or weaker?
SHW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 3 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when SHW moved ahead of CE.
What would change the CE vs SHW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CE closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to SHW's edge; CE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SHW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate SHW's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CE and SHW?
CE: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SHW: 1 bullish / 1 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 CE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SHW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CE and SHW 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.