CSX vs FDX Stock Comparison
FDX currently leads CSX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 55. The clearest difference is value, while CSX has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CSX and FDX?
FDX leads the current stock comparison as FedEx Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CSX Corporation vs FedEx Corporation
FDX leads
FDX leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CSX. Wall Street currently favors CSX on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support FDX, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CSX Corporation
FedEx Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FDX over CSX, 56 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. FDX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while CSX holds the stronger quality profile. FDX also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CSX. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FDX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FDX lead: Reversed — CSX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FDX now leads by 1.
Compare CSX Corporation and FedEx Corporation 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 CSX and FDX 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.
- Value41 vs 69FDX +28
- Quality58 vs 35CSX +23
- Momentum63 vs 65Even
- Risk Resilience61 vs 59Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor FDX. FDX’s edge is concentrated in value; CSX keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FDX's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CSX and FDX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FDX (FedEx Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
CSX (CSX Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
FDXFDX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FDXFDX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FDXFDX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CSXCSX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CSXCSX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FDX, analyst targets favor CSX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CSX | FDX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.8% | +4.7% | CSX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.1% | +97.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CSX | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.45% | 17.12% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.347 | $2.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.520 | $5.730 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #133 | #23 |
FDX grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.12% a year against CSX's 8.45%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FDX. 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 | 55 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | CSXon balance | revenue growth 13% vs 4.2%; EPS growth 25.6% vs 51.7%; TTM ROE 24.1% vs 15.1%; gross margin 54.9% vs 22.9%; operating margin 34.2% vs 6.7% — CSX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FDX | Value 41 vs 69 |
| Technicals | CSX | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day 6.9% vs -11.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CSX | Target upside 6.8% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CSX and FDX 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 FDX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FDX lead: Reversed — CSX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FDX now leads by 1.
- Today
- FDX +1
- 55 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- FDX +1
- 55 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- CSX +4
- 48 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- FDX +8
- 53 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when FDX moved ahead of CSX.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CSX
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.29%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only FDX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.61%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
FDX 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 up over the latest session (price +0.67%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1CSX closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FDX's edge.
- 2CSX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FDX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
CSX leads on balance| Metric | CSX | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | 4.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25.6% | 51.7% |
| Gross margin | 54.9% | 22.9% |
| Operating margin | 34.2% | 6.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.1% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 1.36 |
Performance
CSX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CSX | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | -6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.9% | -24.3% |
| Year to date | 32.6% | 3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 33.6% | 26.1% |
Technicals
CSX has the stronger structure| Metric | CSX | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 78.9 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 36.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.9% | -11.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.3% | 21.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CSX | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.4 | 0.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.19 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.9 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -13.6% | -32.1% |
| Current drawdown | -9.7% | -27.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CSX or FDX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FDX is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against CSX's 55. The edge comes from value. CSX is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CSX or FDX the better buy right now?
FDX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FDX over CSX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FDX leads Value by 28 points; CSX leads Quality by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CSX or FDX?
Analyst price targets imply +6.8% upside for CSX and +4.7% for FDX, so the Street currently favors CSX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FDX. 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, CSX or FDX?
FDX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FDX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, CSX or FDX?
FDX 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, CSX or FDX?
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, CSX or FDX?
CSX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSX 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 CSX more profitable than FDX?
CSX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 54.9% vs 22.9%; operating margin 34.2% vs 6.7%; ttm roe 24.1% vs 15.1%.
Is FDX's lead over CSX getting stronger or weaker?
FDX lead: Reversed — CSX led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FDX now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when FDX moved ahead of CSX.
What would change the CSX vs FDX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSX closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FDX's edge; CSX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FDX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 CSX and FDX?
CSX: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FDX: 1 bullish / 4 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 CSX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FDX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CSX and FDX 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.