CTVA vs DOW Stock Comparison
DOW currently leads CTVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum, while CTVA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CTVA and DOW?
DOW leads the current stock comparison as Dow Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corteva, Inc. vs Dow Inc.
DOW leads
DOW leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CTVA. Wall Street currently favors CTVA on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DOW, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DOW over CTVA, 54 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. DOW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CTVA holds the stronger quality profile. DOW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CTVA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DOW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. DOW lead: Reversed — CTVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DOW now leads by 12.
Compare Corteva, Inc. and Dow Inc. 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 CTVA and DOW 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.
- Momentum24 vs 73DOW +49
- Quality53 vs 22CTVA +31
- Risk Resilience41 vs 62DOW +21
- Value46 vs 65DOW +19
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DOW. DOW’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CTVA 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
DOW's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTVA and DOW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DOW (Dow Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CTVA (Corteva, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
DOWDOW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DOWDOW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DOWDOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
DOWDOW on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
DOWDOW on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
CTVACTVA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DOW, analyst targets favor CTVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTVA | DOW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +414.8% | +19.7% | CTVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +134.4% | +63.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTVA | DOW |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.13% | -5.59% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.520 | $2.800 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.700 | $2.100 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #208 | not ranked |
CTVA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.13% a year against DOW's -5.59%. CTVA never reduced its regular dividend in the window; DOW did in 1 year.
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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DOW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DOW | 42 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CTVAon balance | revenue growth 30.1% vs 23.5%; EPS growth 61.7% vs 235.1%; TTM ROE 4.1% vs -6.6%; gross margin 48.5% vs 9.8% — CTVA takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DOW | Value 46 vs 65 |
| Technicals | DOW | Price vs 50-day -79.6% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -82.8% vs -5.1% |
| Risk Resilience | DOW | Risk Resilience 41 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | CTVA | Target upside 414.8% vs 19.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTVA and DOW 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- 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 DOW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DOW lead: Reversed — CTVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DOW now leads by 12.
- Today
- DOW +12
- 42 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- DOW +14
- 38 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CTVA +2
- 44 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- DOW +6
- 46 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when CTVA moved ahead of DOW.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CTVA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (23.46%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DOW
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
DOW 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.4%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.01%, 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.
- 1CTVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOW's edge.
- 2CTVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
CTVA leads on balance| Metric | CTVA | DOW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.1% | 23.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 61.7% | 235.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.5% | 9.8% |
| Operating margin | 17.1% | -0.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.19 | 0.85 |
Performance
DOW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CTVA | DOW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 7.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -83.9% | 8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -85.4% | -1.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -83.9% | -19.9% |
| Year to date | -80.8% | 31.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -78.9% | 40.1% |
Technicals
DOW has the stronger structure| Metric | CTVA | DOW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 4.2 | 78.3 |
| ADX (14) | 55.1 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -79.6% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -82.8% | -5.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 23.4% |
Risk
DOW is the more resilient| Metric | CTVA | DOW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.05 | -0.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.65 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.46 | 1.64 |
| Max drawdown | -86.8% | -35.5% |
| Current drawdown | -85.8% | -26.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 89.1% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTVA or DOW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DOW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 54 against CTVA's 42. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. CTVA 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 CTVA or DOW the better buy right now?
DOW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DOW over CTVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DOW leads Momentum by 49 points; CTVA leads Quality by 31 points; DOW leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTVA or DOW?
Analyst price targets imply +414.8% upside for CTVA and +19.7% for DOW, so the Street currently favors CTVA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DOW. 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, CTVA or DOW?
DOW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DOW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, CTVA or DOW?
DOW 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, CTVA or DOW?
DOW on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, CTVA or DOW?
DOW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DOW on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 CTVA more profitable than DOW?
CTVA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.5% vs 9.8%; operating margin 17.1% vs -0.1%; ttm roe 4.1% vs -6.6%.
Is DOW's lead over CTVA getting stronger or weaker?
DOW lead: Reversed — CTVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DOW now leads by 12. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when CTVA moved ahead of DOW.
What would change the CTVA vs DOW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTVA closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOW's edge; CTVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DOW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 CTVA and DOW?
CTVA: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DOW: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 CTVA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DOW it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CTVA and DOW 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.