CPRT vs GRMN Stock Comparison
GRMN currently leads CPRT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CPRT and GRMN?
GRMN leads the current stock comparison as Garmin Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Copart, Inc. vs Garmin Ltd.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Copart, Inc.
Garmin Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over CPRT, 62 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. GRMN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Copart, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. 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 CPRT and GRMN 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.
- Quality67 vs 78GRMN +11
- Value48 vs 51Even
- Momentum54 vs 51Even
- Risk Resilience74 vs 71Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -28
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GRMN's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPRT and GRMN 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
GRMNGRMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GRMNGRMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GRMNGRMN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | CPRT | GRMN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.5% | +18.5% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +56% | +25.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN. 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 | 59 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | GRMNon balance | revenue growth 10.3% vs 15.3%; EPS growth 19.4% vs 33.8%; TTM ROE 16.6% vs 21%; gross margin 45.5% vs 60.1%; operating margin 36.6% vs 27.6% — GRMN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 48 vs 51 |
| Technicals | GRMN | Price vs 50-day 1.3% vs -3.7%; vs 200-day -10.8% vs 7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 74 vs 71 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 18.5% vs 18.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPRT and GRMN 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 2 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'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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRMN +3
- 59 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- GRMN +11
- 58 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- GRMN +11
- 51 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- CPRT +6
- 64 vs 58
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when GRMN moved ahead of CPRT.
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
Only CPRT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.19%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish
Only GRMN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
CPRT 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.96%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.6%, AIQ -8 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.
- 1CPRT closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge.
- 2CPRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GRMN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRMN'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
GRMN leads on balance| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.3% | 15.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19.4% | 33.8% |
| Gross margin | 45.5% | 60.1% |
| Operating margin | 36.6% | 27.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.6% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.02 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.2% | -5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2% | -8.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.1% | 7.7% |
| Year to date | -26% | 34.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -35.2% | 8.8% |
Technicals
GRMN has the stronger structure| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.9 | 53.8 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.3% | -3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.8% | 7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.9% | 31.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.26 | 0.33 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.86 | 0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -40.4% | -24.6% |
| Current drawdown | -34.3% | -13% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 34.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPRT or GRMN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against CPRT's 59. The edge comes from 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 CPRT or GRMN the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 GRMN over CPRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRMN leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPRT or GRMN?
Analyst price targets imply +18.5% upside for CPRT and +18.5% for GRMN. 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, CPRT or GRMN?
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, CPRT or GRMN?
GRMN 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, CPRT or GRMN?
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, CPRT or GRMN?
GRMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRMN 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 CPRT more profitable than GRMN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 45.5% vs 60.1%; operating margin 36.6% vs 27.6%; ttm roe 16.6% vs 21%. CPRT leads on one measure and GRMN 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 GRMN's lead over CPRT getting stronger or weaker?
GRMN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when GRMN moved ahead of CPRT.
What would change the CPRT vs GRMN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CPRT closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRMN's edge; CPRT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GRMN's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate GRMN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CPRT and GRMN?
CPRT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GRMN: 3 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 CPRT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GRMN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPRT and GRMN 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.