DUOL vs GTLB Stock Comparison
DUOL currently leads GTLB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 57. The clearest difference is quality, while GTLB has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between DUOL and GTLB?
DUOL leads the current stock comparison as Duolingo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Duolingo, Inc. vs GitLab Inc.
DUOL leads
DUOL leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DUOL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Duolingo, Inc.
GitLab Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DUOL over GTLB, 64 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. DUOL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while GTLB holds the stronger momentum profile. DUOL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DUOL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. DUOL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Duolingo, Inc. and GitLab Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare DUOL and GTLB 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.
- Momentum43 vs 76GTLB +33
- Quality89 vs 60DUOL +29
- Value60 vs 38DUOL +22
- Risk Resilience58 vs 59Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DUOL. DUOL’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; GTLB keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
DUOL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DUOL and GTLB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DUOL (Duolingo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
GTLB (GitLab Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
DUOLDUOL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DUOLDUOL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DUOLDUOL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
GTLBGTLB on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
GTLBGTLB carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
DUOLDUOL 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 | DUOL | GTLB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8% | -25.6% | DUOL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +102.9% | +106.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 14 | 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 DUOL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DUOL | 64 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | DUOLon balance | revenue growth 2.2% vs 1.4%; EPS growth -23.7% vs -94.8%; TTM ROE 30.1% vs -5.5%; gross margin 72.3% vs 85.8%; operating margin 14.2% vs -8.5% — DUOL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DUOL | Value 60 vs 38 |
| Technicals | GTLB | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs 15.9%; vs 200-day 11.5% vs 65.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | DUOL | Target upside -8% vs -25.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DUOL and GTLB 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- 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 DUOL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DUOL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DUOL +7
- 64 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- DUOL +12
- 70 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- DUOL +14
- 68 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- DUOL +2
- 61 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DUOL
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GTLB
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
DUOL 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 -1.62%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.82%, 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.
- 1GTLB closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to DUOL's edge.
- 2GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3DUOL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate DUOL'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
DUOL leads on balance| Metric | DUOL | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.2% | 1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.7% | -94.8% |
| Gross margin | 72.3% | 85.8% |
| Operating margin | 14.2% | -8.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.1% | -5.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0 |
Performance
GTLB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DUOL | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.5% | 12.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.8% | 75.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36% | 148.3% |
| Year to date | -20.5% | 46.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -57.8% | 13.9% |
Technicals
GTLB has the stronger structure| Metric | DUOL | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.9 | 67.2 |
| ADX (14) | 10.6 | 33.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | 15.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.5% | 65.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 52.8% | 52.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DUOL | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.64 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | 0.56 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.35 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -72.2% | -62% |
| Current drawdown | -56.9% | -1.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 63.3% | 59.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DUOL or GTLB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DUOL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against GTLB's 57. The edge comes from quality and value. GTLB 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 DUOL or GTLB the better buy right now?
DUOL 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DUOL over GTLB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GTLB leads Momentum by 33 points; DUOL leads Quality by 29 points; DUOL leads Value by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DUOL or GTLB?
Analyst price targets imply -8% upside for DUOL and -25.6% for GTLB, so the Street currently favors DUOL. 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, DUOL or GTLB?
DUOL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DUOL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, DUOL or GTLB?
DUOL 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, DUOL or GTLB?
GTLB on the Momentum factor, by 33 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, DUOL or GTLB?
GTLB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GTLB 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 DUOL more profitable than GTLB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.3% vs 85.8%; operating margin 14.2% vs -8.5%; ttm roe 30.1% vs -5.5%. DUOL leads on two measures and GTLB 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 DUOL's lead over GTLB getting stronger or weaker?
DUOL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the DUOL vs GTLB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GTLB closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to DUOL's edge; GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; DUOL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate DUOL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DUOL and GTLB?
DUOL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GTLB: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 DUOL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GTLB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DUOL and GTLB 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.