ESTC vs GTLB Stock Comparison
Compare ESTC and GTLB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ESTC and GTLB?
ESTC leads the current stock comparison as Elastic N.V., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Elastic N.V. vs GitLab Inc.
ESTC leads
ESTC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ESTC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Elastic N.V.
GitLab Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ESTC over GTLB, 65 versus 57 as of Sep 11, 2026. ESTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while GTLB holds the stronger momentum profile. ESTC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESTC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ESTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Elastic N.V. and GitLab 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 ESTC and GTLB 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.
- Quality95 vs 60ESTC +35
- Momentum56 vs 74GTLB +18
- Value49 vs 38ESTC +11
- Risk Resilience54 vs 58GTLB +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ESTC. ESTC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; GTLB 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
ESTC's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ESTC and GTLB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ESTC (Elastic N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
GTLB (GitLab Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
ESTCESTC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GTLBGTLB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ESTCESTC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
GTLBGTLB on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
GTLBGTLB on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ESTCESTC 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 | ESTC | GTLB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.1% | -14.5% | ESTC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +87.9% | +114.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 14 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ESTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ESTC | 65 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | ESTCon balance | revenue growth 6.1% vs 1.4%; EPS growth -103.8% vs -94.8%; TTM ROE 35.3% vs -5.5%; gross margin 75.5% vs 85.8%; operating margin -1.5% vs -8.5% — ESTC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ESTC | Value 49 vs 38 |
| Technicals | GTLB | Price vs 50-day 13.3% vs 22.7%; vs 200-day 30.8% vs 49.5% |
| Risk Resilience | GTLB | Risk Resilience 54 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | ESTC | Target upside -3.1% vs -14.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ESTC and GTLB 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 ESTC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ESTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ESTC +8
- 65 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- ESTC +11
- 69 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- ESTC +13
- 72 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- ESTC +6
- 63 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.29%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.09%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ESTC 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 down over the latest session (price -0.11%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.66%, 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.
- 1GTLB closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESTC's edge.
- 2GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3ESTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate ESTC'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
ESTC leads on balance| Metric | ESTC | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.1% | 1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -103.8% | -94.8% |
| Gross margin | 75.5% | 85.8% |
| Operating margin | -1.5% | -8.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 35.3% | -5.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0 |
Performance
GTLB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ESTC | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.8% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.2% | 15.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 37.3% | 65.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 58% | 99.8% |
| Year to date | 10.7% | 26% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -9.6% | -1.2% |
Technicals
GTLB has the stronger structure| Metric | ESTC | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.9 | 64.5 |
| ADX (14) | 38 | 42 |
| Price vs 50-day | 13.3% | 22.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30.8% | 49.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 95.3% | 63.4% |
Risk
GTLB is the more resilient| Metric | ESTC | GTLB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.94 | 0.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | 0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | 0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -54.2% | -62% |
| Current drawdown | -16.4% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.4% | 59.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ESTC or GTLB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ESTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against GTLB's 57. The edge comes from quality and value. GTLB 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 ESTC or GTLB the better buy right now?
ESTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ESTC over GTLB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ESTC leads Quality by 35 points; GTLB leads Momentum by 18 points; ESTC leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ESTC or GTLB?
Analyst price targets imply -3.1% upside for ESTC and -14.5% for GTLB, so the Street currently favors ESTC. 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, ESTC or GTLB?
ESTC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ESTC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, ESTC or GTLB?
GTLB 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, ESTC or GTLB?
GTLB on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, ESTC or GTLB?
GTLB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GTLB on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ESTC more profitable than GTLB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.5% vs 85.8%; operating margin -1.5% vs -8.5%; ttm roe 35.3% vs -5.5%. ESTC leads on two measures and GTLB 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 ESTC's lead over GTLB getting stronger or weaker?
ESTC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ESTC vs GTLB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GTLB closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ESTC's edge; GTLB's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; ESTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate ESTC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ESTC and GTLB?
ESTC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GTLB: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ESTC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GTLB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ESTC and GTLB 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.