DRS vs HWM Stock Comparison
Compare DRS and HWM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DRS and HWM?
DRS leads the current stock comparison as Leonardo DRS, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Leonardo DRS, Inc. vs Howmet Aerospace Inc.
DRS leads
DRS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from HWM.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DRS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Leonardo DRS, Inc.
Howmet Aerospace Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DRS over HWM, 45 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. DRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while HWM holds the stronger quality profile. DRS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DRS lead: Reversed — HWM led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DRS now leads by 5.
Compare Leonardo DRS, Inc. and Howmet Aerospace 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 DRS and HWM 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.
- Value51 vs 25DRS +26
- Quality52 vs 68HWM +16
- Momentum24 vs 18DRS +6
- Risk Resilience53 vs 48DRS +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DRS. DRS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; HWM keeps a meaningful quality 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
DRS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DRS and HWM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DRS (Leonardo DRS, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
HWM (Howmet Aerospace Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 45% against 27%.
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
DRSDRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DRSDRS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DRSDRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
DRSDRS on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
DRSDRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
DRSDRS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DRS | HWM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.7% | +42.3% | DRS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DRS | 45 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | HWMon balance | revenue growth 7.9% vs 10.1%; EPS growth 39.1% vs -8.3%; TTM ROE 11.8% vs 34.4%; gross margin 24.9% vs 34.4%; operating margin 10.5% vs 28.3% — HWM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DRS | Value 51 vs 25 |
| Technicals | HWM | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs -15.9%; vs 200-day -13.4% vs -5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | DRS | Risk Resilience 53 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | DRS | Target upside 49.7% vs 42.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DRS and HWM 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)
- 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 DRS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DRS lead: Reversed — HWM led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DRS now leads by 5.
- Today
- DRS +5
- 45 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- DRS +4
- 45 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- HWM +9
- 44 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- HWM +2
- 50 vs 52
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when DRS moved ahead of HWM.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.00%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
DRS 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.66%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.75%, 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.
- 1HWM closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRS's edge.
- 2HWM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3DRS'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
HWM leads on balance| Metric | DRS | HWM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.9% | 10.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 39.1% | -8.3% |
| Gross margin | 24.9% | 34.4% |
| Operating margin | 10.5% | 28.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.8% | 34.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 0.79 |
Performance
HWM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DRS | HWM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -8.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.6% | -16.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -21.3% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -21.3% | -8.5% |
| Year to date | 6.5% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11.5% | 28.1% |
Technicals
HWM has the stronger structure| Metric | DRS | HWM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 18.3 | 25.9 |
| ADX (14) | 40.4 | 28.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | -15.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13.4% | -5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27% | 45% |
Risk
DRS is the more resilient| Metric | DRS | HWM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.16 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -28.4% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -22.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.3% | 34.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DRS or HWM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DRS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against HWM's 40. The edge comes from value and momentum. HWM 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 DRS or HWM the better buy right now?
DRS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 DRS over HWM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DRS leads Value by 26 points; HWM leads Quality by 16 points; DRS leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DRS or HWM?
Analyst price targets imply +49.7% upside for DRS and +42.3% for HWM, so the Street currently favors DRS. 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, DRS or HWM?
DRS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, DRS or HWM?
DRS 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, DRS or HWM?
DRS on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, DRS or HWM?
DRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 DRS more profitable than HWM?
HWM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 24.9% vs 34.4%; operating margin 10.5% vs 28.3%; ttm roe 11.8% vs 34.4%.
Is DRS's lead over HWM getting stronger or weaker?
DRS lead: Reversed — HWM led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DRS now leads by 5. 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 2026-09-02, when DRS moved ahead of HWM.
What would change the DRS vs HWM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HWM closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRS's edge; HWM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; DRS'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 DRS and HWM?
DRS: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HWM: 2 bullish / 2 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 DRS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HWM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DRS and HWM 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.