ELF vs GME Stock Comparison
Compare ELF and GME across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ELF and GME?
GME leads the current stock comparison as GameStop Corp., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. vs GameStop Corp.
GME leads
GME leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ELF. Wall Street currently favors ELF on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GME, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
GameStop Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GME over ELF, 55 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. GME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while ELF holds the stronger quality profile. GME also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ELF. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GME today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GME lead: Reversed — ELF led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GME now leads by 13.
Compare e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. and GameStop Corp. 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 ELF and GME 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.
- Risk Resilience33 vs 54GME +21
- Momentum53 vs 73GME +20
- Value28 vs 46GME +18
- Quality53 vs 48ELF +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GME. GME’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; ELF 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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +14
No new signals fired.
GME's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ELF and GME both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GME (GameStop Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
ELF (e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 51.7% against 29.4%.
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
GMEGME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ELFELF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GMEGME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
GMEGME on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
GMEGME on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
ELFELF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GME, analyst targets favor ELF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ELF | GME | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.7% | -45.6% | ELF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +85.3% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 1 | 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 GME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GME | 42 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ELFon balance | revenue growth 6.7% vs -24.4%; EPS growth 234.5% vs 210.7%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 14%; gross margin 74.4% vs 34.4%; operating margin 10.5% vs 10.6% — ELF takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GME | Value 28 vs 46 |
| Technicals | ELF | Price vs 50-day 8.3% vs 5%; vs 200-day 25.2% vs -8% |
| Risk Resilience | GME | Risk Resilience 33 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | ELF | Target upside -11.7% vs -45.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ELF and GME 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GME.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GME lead: Reversed — ELF led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GME now leads by 13.
- Today
- GME +13
- 42 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- ELF +8
- 50 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when ELF moved ahead of GME.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.04%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
GME 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.2%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.73%, AIQ +4 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GME's edge.
- 2ELF generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
ELF leads on balance| Metric | ELF | GME |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.7% | -24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 234.5% | 210.7% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 34.4% |
| Operating margin | 10.5% | 10.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 14% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 0.74 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ELF | GME |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | 7.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 64.8% | -9.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.8% | -16.6% |
| Year to date | 25.9% | 1.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.6% | -12.2% |
Technicals
ELF has the stronger structure| Metric | ELF | GME |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 76.9 |
| ADX (14) | 41.4 | 26.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25.2% | -8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.7% | 29.4% |
Risk
GME is the more resilient| Metric | ELF | GME |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.82 | 0.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -66.2% | -35.5% |
| Current drawdown | -34.7% | -26.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.1% | 37.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ELF or GME?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GME is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against ELF's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. ELF 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 ELF or GME the better buy right now?
GME 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 GME over ELF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GME leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; GME leads Momentum by 20 points; GME leads Value by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ELF or GME?
Analyst price targets imply -11.7% upside for ELF and -45.6% for GME, so the Street currently favors ELF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GME. 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, ELF or GME?
GME is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 GME?
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 GME?
GME on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 GME?
GME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GME on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 GME?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.4% vs 34.4%; operating margin 10.5% vs 10.6%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 14%. 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 GME's lead over ELF getting stronger or weaker?
GME lead: Reversed — ELF led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GME now leads by 13. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when ELF moved ahead of GME.
What would change the ELF vs GME verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ELF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GME's edge; ELF generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 ELF and GME?
ELF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GME: 2 bullish / 3 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 ELF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GME it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ELF and GME 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.