ELF vs HAS Stock Comparison
Compare ELF and HAS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ELF and HAS?
HAS leads the current stock comparison as Hasbro, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. vs Hasbro, Inc.
HAS leads
HAS leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support HAS, and its lead is widening.
e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.
Hasbro, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAS over ELF, 54 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. HAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ELF holds the stronger momentum profile. HAS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. HAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare e.l.f. Beauty, Inc. and Hasbro, 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 ELF and HAS 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 53HAS +20
- Quality53 vs 70HAS +17
- Value28 vs 44HAS +16
- Momentum53 vs 48ELF +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor HAS. HAS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; ELF keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +25
No new signals fired.
HAS's lead widened by 8 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ELF and HAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAS (Hasbro, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
ELF (e.l.f. Beauty, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 51.7% against 19.7%.
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
HASHAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ELFELF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HASHAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
ELFELF on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
HASHAS on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
HASHAS 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 | HAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.7% | +14.9% | HAS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +85.3% | +36.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAS | 42 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | HASon balance | revenue growth 6.7% vs 13.9%; EPS growth 234.5% vs -19.9%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 138.4%; gross margin 74.4% vs 70.3%; operating margin 10.5% vs 23.9% — HAS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HAS | Value 28 vs 44 |
| Technicals | ELF | Price vs 50-day 8.3% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 25.2% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | HAS | Risk Resilience 33 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | HAS | Target upside -11.7% vs 14.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ELF and HAS 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 HAS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAS +12
- 42 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- HAS +4
- 50 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- HAS +6
- 50 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- ELF +1
- 49 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 9 when ELF moved ahead of HAS.
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
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.26%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ELF is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.53%, AIQ +6 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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge.
- 2ELF generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HAS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
HAS leads on balance| Metric | ELF | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.7% | 13.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 234.5% | -19.9% |
| Gross margin | 74.4% | 70.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.5% | 23.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 138.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 5.06 |
Performance
ELF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ELF | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.8% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | -5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 64.8% | 9.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.8% | -4.4% |
| Year to date | 25.9% | 10% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.6% | 13.6% |
Technicals
ELF has the stronger structure| Metric | ELF | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.5 | 36.8 |
| ADX (14) | 41.4 | 20 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25.2% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.7% | 19.7% |
Risk
HAS is the more resilient| Metric | ELF | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.82 | 0.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.28 | 0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -66.2% | -28.4% |
| Current drawdown | -34.7% | -14.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.1% | 30.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ELF or HAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against ELF's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 HAS the better buy right now?
HAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 HAS over ELF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HAS leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; HAS leads Quality by 17 points; HAS leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ELF or HAS?
Analyst price targets imply -11.7% upside for ELF and +14.9% for HAS, so the Street currently favors HAS. 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 HAS?
HAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 HAS?
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 HAS?
ELF 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, ELF or HAS?
HAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAS on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 HAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.4% vs 70.3%; operating margin 10.5% vs 23.9%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 138.4%. ELF leads on one measure and HAS on two measures, 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 HAS's lead over ELF getting stronger or weaker?
HAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 12 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-09, when ELF moved ahead of HAS.
What would change the ELF vs HAS 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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge; ELF generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HAS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 HAS?
ELF: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HAS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. 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 HAS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ELF and HAS 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.