EXPD vs FRO Stock Comparison
Compare EXPD and FRO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EXPD and FRO?
FRO leads the current stock comparison as Frontline Plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. vs Frontline Plc
FRO leads
FRO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from EXPD. Wall Street currently favors EXPD on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FRO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.
Frontline Plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FRO over EXPD, 70 versus 68 as of Sep 11, 2026. FRO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while EXPD holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FRO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EXPD. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FRO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FRO lead: Reversed — EXPD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRO now leads by 2.
Compare Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. and Frontline Plc 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 EXPD and FRO 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 Resilience76 vs 40EXPD +36
- Momentum66 vs 79FRO +13
- Value55 vs 64FRO +9
- Quality77 vs 82FRO +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FRO. FRO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; EXPD keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +6
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FRO's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EXPD and FRO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FRO (Frontline Plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
EXPD (Expeditors International of Washington, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
FROFRO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FROFRO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FROFRO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
FROFRO on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
EXPDEXPD on Risk Resilience, by 36 points.
Analyst upside
EXPDEXPD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FRO, analyst targets favor EXPD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EXPD | FRO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.4% | -14.7% | EXPD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 FRO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 68 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | FRO | revenue growth 25.8% vs 32.1%; EPS growth 18% vs 17.9%; TTM ROE 40.7% vs 54.9%; gross margin 23.9% vs 51.5%; operating margin 9.8% vs 49.4% |
| Valuation | FRO | Value 55 vs 64 |
| Technicals | FRO | Price vs 50-day 7.1% vs 21.3%; vs 200-day 18.7% vs 42.6% |
| Risk Resilience | EXPD | Risk Resilience 76 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | EXPD | Target upside -11.4% vs -14.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EXPD and FRO 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
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 FRO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FRO lead: Reversed — EXPD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRO now leads by 2.
- Today
- FRO +2
- 68 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- FRO +2
- 66 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- EXPD +5
- 71 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- EXPD +9
- 68 vs 59
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when FRO moved ahead of EXPD.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.80%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.52%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
FRO 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 up over the latest session (price +1.73%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.67%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1EXPD closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to FRO's edge.
- 2EXPD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
FRO leads on balance| Metric | EXPD | FRO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.8% | 32.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18% | 17.9% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 51.5% |
| Operating margin | 9.8% | 49.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.7% | 54.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.27 | 0.77 |
Performance
FRO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EXPD | FRO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | 6.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.6% | 22.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.9% | 33.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.5% | 44.5% |
| Year to date | 27.1% | 111.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 55.5% | 111.2% |
Technicals
FRO has the stronger structure| Metric | EXPD | FRO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58 | 71.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 31.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.1% | 21.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.7% | 42.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.7% | 36.5% |
Risk
EXPD is the more resilient| Metric | EXPD | FRO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.5 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.49 | 1.93 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.8 | 3.02 |
| Max drawdown | -15.9% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.9% | 42.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EXPD or FRO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FRO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against EXPD's 68. The edge comes from momentum and value. EXPD is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FRO the better buy right now?
FRO 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FRO over EXPD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXPD leads Risk Resilience by 36 points; FRO leads Momentum by 13 points; FRO leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EXPD or FRO?
Analyst price targets imply -11.4% upside for EXPD and -14.7% for FRO, so the Street currently favors EXPD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FRO. 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 FRO?
FRO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FRO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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 FRO?
FRO 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 FRO?
FRO on the Momentum factor, by 13 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 FRO?
EXPD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXPD on Risk Resilience, by 36 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 FRO?
FRO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 51.5%; operating margin 9.8% vs 49.4%; ttm roe 40.7% vs 54.9%.
Is FRO's lead over EXPD getting stronger or weaker?
FRO lead: Reversed — EXPD led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FRO now leads by 2. 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 2026-09-02, when FRO moved ahead of EXPD.
What would change the EXPD vs FRO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXPD closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to FRO's edge; EXPD's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FRO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 EXPD and FRO?
EXPD: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FRO: 6 bullish / 2 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 FRO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EXPD and FRO 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.