EXPD vs FDX Stock Comparison
EXPD currently leads FDX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while FDX has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between EXPD and FDX?
EXPD leads the current stock comparison as Expeditors International of Washington, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. vs FedEx Corporation
EXPD leads
EXPD leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FDX on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EXPD, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
FedEx Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXPD over FDX, 71 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. EXPD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while FDX holds the stronger value profile. EXPD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FDX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXPD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. EXPD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. and FedEx Corporation 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 EXPD and FDX 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.
- Quality77 vs 35EXPD +42
- Momentum80 vs 65EXPD +15
- Value55 vs 69FDX +14
- Risk Resilience73 vs 59EXPD +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EXPD. EXPD’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; FDX keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EXPD's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXPD and FDX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXPD (Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
FDX (FedEx Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
EXPDEXPD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FDXFDX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FDXFDX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EXPDEXPD on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
EXPDEXPD on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
FDXFDX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EXPD, analyst targets favor FDX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EXPD | FDX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.7% | +4.7% | FDX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.2% | +97.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | EXPD | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.17% | 17.12% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.040 | $2.600 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.540 | $5.730 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #141 | #23 |
FDX grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 17.12% a year against EXPD's 8.17%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXPD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EXPD | 71 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | EXPDon balance | revenue growth 25.8% vs 4.2%; EPS growth 18% vs 51.7%; TTM ROE 40.7% vs 15.1%; gross margin 23.9% vs 22.9%; operating margin 9.8% vs 6.7% — EXPD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FDX | Value 55 vs 69 |
| Technicals | EXPD | Price vs 50-day 3.8% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day 20% vs -11.6% |
| Risk Resilience | EXPD | Risk Resilience 73 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | FDX | Target upside -9.7% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXPD and FDX and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
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 EXPD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EXPD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXPD +15
- 71 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- EXPD +15
- 71 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- EXPD +21
- 65 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- EXPD +10
- 71 vs 61
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only EXPD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.79%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.7%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only FDX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.61%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EXPD 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.71%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1FDX closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPD's edge.
- 2FDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EXPD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate EXPD'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
EXPD leads on balance| Metric | EXPD | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.8% | 4.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18% | 51.7% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 22.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 6.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.7% | 15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.27 | 1.36 |
Performance
EXPD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EXPD | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.8% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 11.8% | -6.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 31.4% | -24.3% |
| Year to date | 32.6% | 3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 67.8% | 26.1% |
Technicals
EXPD has the stronger structure| Metric | EXPD | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 75.8 | 78.9 |
| ADX (14) | 24.6 | 36.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.8% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 20% | -11.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.3% | 21.8% |
Risk
EXPD is the more resilient| Metric | EXPD | FDX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 0.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.67 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.03 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -15.9% | -32.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.1% | -27.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.7% | 33.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXPD or FDX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXPD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against FDX's 56. The edge comes from quality and momentum. FDX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 EXPD or FDX the better buy right now?
EXPD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EXPD over FDX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXPD leads Quality by 42 points; EXPD leads Momentum by 15 points; FDX leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EXPD or FDX?
Analyst price targets imply -9.7% upside for EXPD and +4.7% for FDX, so the Street currently favors FDX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EXPD. 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, EXPD or FDX?
FDX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FDX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, EXPD or FDX?
FDX 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, EXPD or FDX?
EXPD on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, EXPD or FDX?
EXPD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXPD on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 EXPD more profitable than FDX?
EXPD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 22.9%; operating margin 9.8% vs 6.7%; ttm roe 40.7% vs 15.1%.
Is EXPD's lead over FDX getting stronger or weaker?
EXPD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EXPD vs FDX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FDX closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPD's edge; FDX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EXPD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 15-point move would eliminate EXPD's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EXPD and FDX?
EXPD: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FDX: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 EXPD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FDX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EXPD and FDX 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.