DXC vs FFIV Stock Comparison
Compare DXC and FFIV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DXC and FFIV?
FFIV leads the current stock comparison as F5, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
DXC Technology Company vs F5, Inc.
FFIV leads
FFIV leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DXC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FFIV, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
DXC Technology Company
F5, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FFIV over DXC, 65 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. FFIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while DXC holds the stronger value profile. FFIV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DXC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. FFIV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare DXC Technology Company and F5, 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 DXC and FFIV 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.
- Quality20 vs 79FFIV +59
- Value75 vs 56DXC +19
- Risk Resilience46 vs 64FFIV +18
- Momentum59 vs 59Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FFIV. FFIV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; DXC keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
No new signals fired.
FFIV's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DXC and FFIV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FFIV (F5, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
DXC (DXC Technology Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 44% against 38.1%.
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
FFIVFFIV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DXCDXC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DXCDXC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FFIVFFIV on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
DXCDXC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FFIV, analyst targets favor DXC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DXC | FFIV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.8% | -3.9% | DXC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.6% | +46.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FFIV | 50 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | FFIVon balance | revenue growth -4.2% vs 6.6%; EPS growth 193.8% vs 40.6%; TTM ROE 4.1% vs 19.9%; gross margin 13.7% vs 82.2%; operating margin 3.4% vs 24.5% — FFIV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DXC | Value 75 vs 56 |
| Technicals | FFIV | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day -7.1% vs 20.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FFIV | Risk Resilience 46 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | DXC | Target upside 10.8% vs -3.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DXC and FFIV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 FFIV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FFIV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FFIV +15
- 50 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- FFIV +8
- 54 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIV +12
- 47 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- FFIV +17
- 52 vs 69
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.11%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.36%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.53%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +3.17%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.32%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1DXC closes the Quality gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge.
- 2DXC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FFIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
FFIV leads on balance| Metric | DXC | FFIV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.2% | 6.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 193.8% | 40.6% |
| Gross margin | 13.7% | 82.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.4% | 24.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | 19.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.07 |
Performance
FFIV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DXC | FFIV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.1% | 1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 25.2% | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.2% | 37.6% |
| Year to date | -24.6% | 56.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.6% | 24.3% |
Technicals
FFIV has the stronger structure| Metric | DXC | FFIV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.5 | 59.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30 | 13.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.1% | 20.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44% | 38.1% |
Risk
FFIV is the more resilient| Metric | DXC | FFIV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.61 | 0.94 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.33 | 0.86 |
| Max drawdown | -46.7% | -34.7% |
| Current drawdown | -28.4% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 56% | 36.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DXC or FFIV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FFIV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against DXC's 50. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. DXC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 DXC or FFIV the better buy right now?
FFIV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FFIV over DXC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FFIV leads Quality by 59 points; DXC leads Value by 19 points; FFIV leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DXC or FFIV?
Analyst price targets imply +10.8% upside for DXC and -3.9% for FFIV, so the Street currently favors DXC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FFIV. 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, DXC or FFIV?
DXC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DXC 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, DXC or FFIV?
DXC 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, DXC or FFIV?
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, DXC or FFIV?
FFIV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FFIV on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 DXC more profitable than FFIV?
FFIV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.7% vs 82.2%; operating margin 3.4% vs 24.5%; ttm roe 4.1% vs 19.9%.
Is FFIV's lead over DXC getting stronger or weaker?
FFIV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the DXC vs FFIV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DXC closes the Quality gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge; DXC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FFIV's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 DXC and FFIV?
DXC: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. FFIV: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on DXC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FFIV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DXC and FFIV 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.