ELF vs GAP Stock Comparison
GAP currently leads ELF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 51. The clearest difference is value, while ELF has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ELF and GAP?
GAP leads the current stock comparison as The Gap, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. vs The Gap, Inc.
GAP leads
GAP leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support GAP, and its lead is narrowing.
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
The Gap, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GAP over ELF, 52 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. GAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ELF holds the stronger momentum profile. GAP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GAP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. and The Gap, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ELF and GAP 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.
- Momentum78 vs 29ELF +49
- Value28 vs 67GAP +39
- Quality53 vs 61GAP +8
- Risk Resilience45 vs 40ELF +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor GAP. GAP’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ELF keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GAP's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ELF and GAP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GAP (The Gap, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ELF (e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
GAPGAP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ELFELF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GAPGAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
ELFELF on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
ELFELF on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
GAPGAP 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 | ELF | GAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -17.2% | +12.3% | GAP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +83.2% | +87.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GAP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 51 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ELFon balance | revenue growth 6.7% vs 4.4%; EPS growth 234.5% vs 53.3%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 33.1%; gross margin 74.4% vs 43.3%; operating margin 10.5% vs 11% — ELF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GAP | Value 28 vs 67 |
| Technicals | ELF | Price vs 50-day 6.4% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 42.4% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | ELF | Risk Resilience 45 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | GAP | Target upside -17.2% vs 12.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ELF and GAP 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GAP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GAP +1
- 51 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- GAP +4
- 51 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- GAP +13
- 51 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- GAP +6
- 51 vs 57
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only ELF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (29.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GAP
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.24%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.12%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.49%, 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.
- 1ELF closes the Value gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge.
- 2ELF's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate GAP'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
ELF leads on balance| Metric | ELF | GAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.7% | 4.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 234.5% | 53.3% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 43.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.5% | 11% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 33.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 1.45 |
Performance
ELF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ELF | GAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.3% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 40.3% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 77.6% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | 50.8% | -14.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6% | -6.2% |
Technicals
ELF has the stronger structure| Metric | ELF | GAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 69.4 | 36.2 |
| ADX (14) | 38.3 | 20 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.4% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 42.4% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 30.1% |
Risk
ELF is the more resilient| Metric | ELF | GAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.63 | 1.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.09 | -0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.1 | -0.1 |
| Max drawdown | -62.4% | -37% |
| Current drawdown | -12.4% | -24.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.3% | 46.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ELF or GAP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GAP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against ELF's 51. The edge comes from value and quality. ELF 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 ELF or GAP the better buy right now?
GAP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GAP over ELF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ELF leads Momentum by 49 points; GAP leads Value by 39 points; GAP leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ELF or GAP?
Analyst price targets imply -17.2% upside for ELF and +12.3% for GAP, so the Street currently favors GAP. 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, ELF or GAP?
GAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 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, ELF or GAP?
ELF 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, ELF or GAP?
ELF on the Momentum factor, by 49 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, ELF or GAP?
ELF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ELF 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 ELF more profitable than GAP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.4% vs 43.3%; operating margin 10.5% vs 11%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 33.1%. Each name leads 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 GAP's lead over ELF getting stronger or weaker?
GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ELF vs GAP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ELF closes the Value gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge; ELF's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate GAP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ELF and GAP?
ELF: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. GAP: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ELF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GAP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ELF and GAP 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.