CHWY vs DECK Stock Comparison
Compare CHWY and DECK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHWY and DECK?
DECK leads the current stock comparison as Deckers Outdoor Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chewy, Inc. vs Deckers Outdoor Corporation
DECK leads
DECK leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CHWY on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DECK, and its lead is widening.
Chewy, Inc.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DECK over CHWY, 59 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. DECK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. DECK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CHWY. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DECK today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chewy, Inc. and Deckers Outdoor Corporation 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 CHWY and DECK 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.
- Risk Resilience35 vs 66DECK +31
- Quality66 vs 93DECK +27
- Value42 vs 51DECK +9
- Momentum26 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DECK. DECK’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
DECK's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHWY and DECK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DECK (Deckers Outdoor Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CHWY (Chewy, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 54.9% against 35.8%.
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
DECKDECK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CHWYCHWY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DECKDECK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DECKDECK on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 DECK, analyst targets favor CHWY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CHWY | DECK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.5% | +48.8% | CHWY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.2% | +49.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 14 | 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 DECK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DECK | 44 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 0% vs -2.1%; TTM ROE 44.8% vs 41.1%; gross margin 29.7% vs 57.8%; operating margin 1.7% vs 22.7% |
| Valuation | DECK | Value 42 vs 51 |
| Technicals | CHWY | Price vs 50-day -8.7% vs -15.3%; vs 200-day -17.8% vs -21.5% |
| Risk Resilience | DECK | Risk Resilience 35 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | CHWY | Target upside 62.5% vs 48.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHWY and DECK and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 DECK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DECK +15
- 44 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- DECK +7
- 55 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- DECK +1
- 57 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- DECK +13
- 53 vs 66
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.
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
0 bullish / 5 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
CHWY 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 -3.04%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.74%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to DECK's edge.
- 2CHWY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DECK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | CHWY | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -2.1% |
| Gross margin | 29.7% | 57.8% |
| Operating margin | 1.7% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 44.8% | 41.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 0.21 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CHWY | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.8% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -12.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | -26% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18% | -22.2% |
| Year to date | -36.2% | -22.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.4% | -31.8% |
Technicals
CHWY has the stronger structure| Metric | CHWY | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.5 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 39 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.7% | -15.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.8% | -21.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.9% | 35.8% |
Risk
DECK is the more resilient| Metric | CHWY | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.24 | -0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.74 | -1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -58.4% | -34% |
| Current drawdown | -49.9% | -34% |
| Annualized volatility | 49.2% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHWY or DECK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DECK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against CHWY's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 CHWY or DECK the better buy right now?
DECK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DECK over CHWY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DECK leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; DECK leads Quality by 27 points; DECK leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHWY or DECK?
Analyst price targets imply +62.5% upside for CHWY and +48.8% for DECK, so the Street currently favors CHWY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DECK. 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, CHWY or DECK?
DECK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DECK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, CHWY or DECK?
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, CHWY or DECK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CHWY or DECK?
DECK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DECK on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 CHWY more profitable than DECK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29.7% vs 57.8%; operating margin 1.7% vs 22.7%; ttm roe 44.8% vs 41.1%. CHWY leads on one measure and DECK 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 DECK's lead over CHWY getting stronger or weaker?
DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 15 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 CHWY vs DECK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHWY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to DECK's edge; CHWY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DECK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CHWY and DECK?
CHWY: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. DECK: 0 bullish / 5 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 CHWY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DECK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CHWY and DECK 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.