CPRT vs GRMN Stock Comparison
Compare CPRT and GRMN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPRT and GRMN?
GRMN leads the current stock comparison as Garmin Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Copart, Inc. vs Garmin Ltd.
GRMN leads
GRMN leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CPRT. Wall Street currently favors CPRT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GRMN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Copart, Inc.
Garmin Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRMN over CPRT, 56 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. GRMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CPRT holds the stronger momentum profile. GRMN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CPRT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GRMN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. GRMN lead: Reversed — CPRT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GRMN now leads by 2.
Compare Copart, Inc. and Garmin Ltd. 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 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.
- Momentum37 vs 20CPRT +17
- Risk Resilience66 vs 81GRMN +15
- Quality67 vs 78GRMN +11
- Value48 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GRMN. GRMN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CPRT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -6
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.63%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
GRMN's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPRT and GRMN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRMN (Garmin Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CPRT (Copart, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 48.4% against 17.4%.
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
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
CPRTCPRT on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
GRMNGRMN on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
CPRTCPRT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GRMN, analyst targets favor CPRT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CPRT | GRMN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.5% | +4.2% | CPRT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +58.8% | +44.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | 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 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 | 54 vs 56 |
| 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% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day -10.4% vs 13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | GRMN | Risk Resilience 66 vs 81 |
| Analyst expectations | CPRT | Target upside 13.5% vs 4.2% |
✓ 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 GRMN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GRMN lead: Reversed — CPRT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GRMN now leads by 2.
- Today
- GRMN +2
- 54 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- CPRT +3
- 61 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- CPRT +3
- 64 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- GRMN +14
- 55 vs 69
The lead changed hands 3 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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.40%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.69%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GRMN 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.6%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.85%, 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.
- 1CPRT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
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
GRMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.4% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.1% | -12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.9% | 17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.5% | 15.3% |
| Year to date | -21.5% | 34.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36.9% | 13.6% |
Technicals
GRMN has the stronger structure| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.1 | 16.6 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 25.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.4% | 13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.4% | 17.4% |
Risk
GRMN is the more resilient| Metric | CPRT | GRMN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.18 | 0.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.46 | 0.44 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.05 | 0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -44.4% | -28% |
| Current drawdown | -37.1% | -13.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.3% | 34.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -2.7% |
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 Sep 11, 2026, scoring 56 against CPRT's 54. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CPRT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CPRT or GRMN the better buy right now?
GRMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRMN over CPRT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CPRT leads Momentum by 17 points; GRMN leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; 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 +13.5% upside for CPRT and +4.2% for GRMN, so the Street currently favors CPRT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GRMN. 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, 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?
CPRT on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, CPRT or GRMN?
GRMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRMN on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 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: Reversed — CPRT led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GRMN now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 CPRT and GRMN?
CPRT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. GRMN: 2 bullish / 2 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 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.