ECL vs KWR Stock Comparison
Compare ECL and KWR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ECL and KWR?
KWR leads the current stock comparison as Quaker Houghton, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ecolab Inc. vs Quaker Houghton
KWR leads
KWR leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors ECL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KWR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ecolab Inc.
Quaker Houghton
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KWR over ECL, 46 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. KWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while ECL holds the stronger quality profile. KWR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ECL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KWR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ecolab Inc. and Quaker Houghton 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 ECL and KWR 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.
- Value30 vs 57KWR +27
- Quality51 vs 43ECL +8
- Momentum22 vs 27KWR +5
- Risk Resilience68 vs 63ECL +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KWR. KWR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; ECL 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: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
KWR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ECL and KWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KWR (Quaker Houghton): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ECL (Ecolab Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
KWRKWR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KWRKWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KWRKWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
KWRKWR on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
ECLECL on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ECLECL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KWR, analyst targets favor ECL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ECL | KWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.8% | +11.1% | ECL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.3% | +27.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 4 | 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 KWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KWR | 40 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ECLon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 10.8%; EPS growth 24.8% vs 38.1%; TTM ROE 21.4% vs 7.1%; gross margin 44.1% vs 34.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs 9.1% — ECL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KWR | Value 30 vs 57 |
| Technicals | KWR | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day -0.5% vs 5.2% |
| Risk Resilience | ECL | Risk Resilience 68 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | ECL | Target upside 16.8% vs 11.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ECL and KWR 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 KWR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KWR +6
- 40 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- KWR +5
- 51 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- KWR +1
- 54 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when KWR moved ahead of ECL.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.96%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.51%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
KWR 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 up over the latest session (price +1.69%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.79%, 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.
- 1ECL closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to KWR's edge.
- 2ECL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3KWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
ECL leads on balance| Metric | ECL | KWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 10.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 24.8% | 38.1% |
| Gross margin | 44.1% | 34.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | 9.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.4% | 7.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.66 |
Performance
KWR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ECL | KWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -4.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.5% | -8.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.7% | 13.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 21.9% |
| Year to date | 3.5% | 12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.4% | 7.7% |
Technicals
KWR has the stronger structure| Metric | ECL | KWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.8 | 27.4 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 12.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.5% | 5.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.6% | 22.2% |
Risk
ECL is the more resilient| Metric | ECL | KWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.08 | 0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -20.3% | -36.5% |
| Current drawdown | -11.9% | -14.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.9% | 38.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ECL or KWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KWR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against ECL's 40. The edge comes from value and momentum. ECL 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 ECL or KWR the better buy right now?
KWR 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KWR over ECL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KWR leads Value by 27 points; ECL leads Quality by 8 points; KWR leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ECL or KWR?
Analyst price targets imply +16.8% upside for ECL and +11.1% for KWR, so the Street currently favors ECL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KWR. 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, ECL or KWR?
KWR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KWR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, ECL or KWR?
KWR 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, ECL or KWR?
KWR on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, ECL or KWR?
ECL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ECL 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 ECL more profitable than KWR?
ECL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.1% vs 34.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs 9.1%; ttm roe 21.4% vs 7.1%.
Is KWR's lead over ECL getting stronger or weaker?
KWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2026-08-31, when KWR moved ahead of ECL.
What would change the ECL vs KWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ECL closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to KWR's edge; ECL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; KWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 ECL and KWR?
ECL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. KWR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 ECL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KWR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ECL and KWR 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.