DOCN vs DT Stock Comparison
Compare DOCN and DT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DOCN and DT?
DT leads the current stock comparison as Dynatrace, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. vs Dynatrace, Inc.
DT leads
DT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DOCN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.
Dynatrace, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DT over DOCN, 59 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. DT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while DOCN holds the stronger momentum profile. DT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DOCN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc. and Dynatrace, Inc. 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 DOCN and DT 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.
- Value25 vs 49DT +24
- Risk Resilience29 vs 52DT +23
- Momentum81 vs 67DOCN +14
- Quality72 vs 65DOCN +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DT. DT’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; DOCN 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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
DT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DOCN and DT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DT (Dynatrace, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
DOCN (DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 79.9% against 40%.
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
DTDT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DTDT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DTDT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
DOCNDOCN on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
DTDT on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
DOCNDOCN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DT, analyst targets favor DOCN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DOCN | DT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.6% | -0.2% | DOCN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.7% | +56.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 16 | 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 DT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DT | 54 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | DOCNon balance | revenue growth 9% vs 4.3%; EPS growth 100% vs 122.2%; TTM ROE 54.7% vs 5.7%; gross margin 57.2% vs 81.4%; operating margin 14.8% vs 13% — DOCN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DT | Value 25 vs 49 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs 7.5%; vs 200-day 33.2% vs 23.6% |
| Risk Resilience | DT | Risk Resilience 29 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | DOCN | Target upside 31.6% vs -0.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DOCN and DT 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 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 DT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DT +5
- 54 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- DT +19
- 41 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- DT +15
- 46 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- DT +25
- 38 vs 63
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 15 when DT moved ahead of DOCN.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (25.59%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.95%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.19%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
DT 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 -6.18%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.68%, 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.
- 1DOCN closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to DT's edge.
- 2DOCN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate DT'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
DOCN leads on balance| Metric | DOCN | DT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 100% | 122.2% |
| Gross margin | 57.2% | 81.4% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 13% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 54.7% | 5.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.61 | 0.06 |
Performance
DOCN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DOCN | DT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 25% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | 3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.6% | 26.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 90.8% | 36.9% |
| Year to date | 172.3% | 18.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 293.4% | 3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DOCN | DT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.5 | 57.4 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 16.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | 7.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 33.2% | 23.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 79.9% | 40% |
Risk
DT is the more resilient| Metric | DOCN | DT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.48 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.94 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.11 | 0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -42.1% | -36.5% |
| Current drawdown | -27.7% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 85% | 42.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DOCN or DT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against DOCN's 54. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. DOCN 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 DOCN or DT the better buy right now?
DT 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DT over DOCN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DT leads Value by 24 points; DT leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; DOCN leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DOCN or DT?
Analyst price targets imply +31.6% upside for DOCN and -0.2% for DT, so the Street currently favors DOCN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DT. 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, DOCN or DT?
DT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, DOCN or DT?
DT 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, DOCN or DT?
DOCN on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, DOCN or DT?
DT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DT on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 DOCN more profitable than DT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 57.2% vs 81.4%; operating margin 14.8% vs 13%; ttm roe 54.7% vs 5.7%. DOCN leads on two measures and DT on one measure, 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 DT's lead over DOCN getting stronger or weaker?
DT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-15, when DT moved ahead of DOCN.
What would change the DOCN vs DT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DOCN closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to DT's edge; DOCN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; DT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate DT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DOCN and DT?
DOCN: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. DT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 DOCN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DOCN and DT 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.