EPAM vs SPY Stock Comparison
EPAM currently leads SPY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 56. The clearest difference is momentum, while SPY has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between EPAM and SPY?
EPAM leads the current stock comparison as EPAM Systems, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EPAM Systems, Inc. vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
EPAM leads
EPAM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support EPAM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EPAM Systems, Inc.
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPAM over SPY, 67 versus 56 as of Nov 7, 2026. EPAM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while SPY holds the stronger quality profile. EPAM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EPAM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. EPAM lead: Reversed — SPY led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPAM now leads by 11.
Compare EPAM Systems, Inc. and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF 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 EPAM and SPY 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.
- Momentum86 vs 24EPAM +62
- Quality53 vs 84SPY +31
- Value74 vs 43EPAM +31
- Risk Resilience52 vs 77SPY +25
3 of 4 evidence groups favor EPAM. EPAM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; SPY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
EPAM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EPAM and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPAM (EPAM Systems, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
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
EPAMEPAM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EPAMEPAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EPAMEPAM on the Momentum factor, by 62 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | EPAM | SPY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -28.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +48.4% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor EPAM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EPAM | 67 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | EPAM | Value 74 vs 43 |
| Technicals | EPAM | Price vs 50-day 30.7% vs -4%; vs 200-day 30.8% vs 0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 52 vs 77 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EPAM and SPY 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 11 points.
- 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)
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 EPAM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6EPAM lead: Reversed — SPY led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPAM now leads by 11.
- Today
- EPAM +11
- 67 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EPAM +9
- 68 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +1
- 65 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- EPAM +2
- 66 vs 64
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when EPAM moved ahead of SPY.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EPAM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.15%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.43%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
EPAM 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.86%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.31%, 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.
- 1SPY closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM's edge.
- 2SPY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EPAM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
Split| Metric | EPAM | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.1% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.8% | — |
| Gross margin | 28.3% | — |
| Operating margin | 10.3% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | — |
Performance
EPAM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EPAM | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13.4% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 31.2% | -5.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 55% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.6% | -0.3% |
| Year to date | -22.2% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1% | 8.5% |
Technicals
EPAM has the stronger structure| Metric | EPAM | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.6 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 37.9 | 18 |
| Price vs 50-day | 30.7% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30.8% | 0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 83.4% | 19.9% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | EPAM | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.2 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.15 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -65.7% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -28% | -5.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.1% | 13.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -1.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EPAM or SPY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPAM is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 67 against SPY's 56. The edge comes from momentum and value. SPY 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 EPAM or SPY the better buy right now?
EPAM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EPAM over SPY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPAM leads Momentum by 62 points; SPY leads Quality by 31 points; EPAM leads Value by 31 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EPAM or SPY?
Analyst price targets imply -28.6% upside for EPAM and not covered for SPY. 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, EPAM or SPY?
EPAM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EPAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, EPAM or SPY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, EPAM or SPY?
EPAM on the Momentum factor, by 62 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, EPAM or SPY?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 EPAM more profitable than SPY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is EPAM's lead over SPY getting stronger or weaker?
EPAM lead: Reversed — SPY led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EPAM now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when EPAM moved ahead of SPY.
What would change the EPAM vs SPY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPY closes the Momentum gap — currently 62 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM's edge; SPY's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EPAM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 EPAM and SPY?
EPAM: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPY: 2 bullish / 2 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 EPAM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SPY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.