FAST vs FMC Stock Comparison
Compare FAST and FMC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FAST and FMC?
FAST leads the current stock comparison as Fastenal Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fastenal Company vs FMC Corporation
FAST leads
FAST leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 25 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FMC on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FAST, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fastenal Company
FMC Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FAST over FMC, 58 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. FAST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FMC holds the stronger value profile. FAST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FMC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FAST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FAST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fastenal Company and FMC Corporation 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 FAST and FMC 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.
- Quality83 vs 16FAST +67
- Value30 vs 75FMC +45
- Risk Resilience75 vs 35FAST +40
- Momentum52 vs 66FMC +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FAST. FAST’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; FMC keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
FAST's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FAST and FMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FAST (Fastenal Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
FMC (FMC Corporation): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 61.3% against 21.1%.
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
FASTFAST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FMCFMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FMCFMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 points.
Momentum
FMCFMC on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
FASTFAST on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
FMCFMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FAST, analyst targets favor FMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FAST | FMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.3% | +31.6% | FMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | +66.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FAST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FAST | 58 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | FASTon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 14.3%; EPS growth 10% vs 34.2%; TTM ROE 34% vs -118.6%; gross margin 44.7% vs 35.3%; operating margin 20.3% vs -71.6% — FAST takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FMC | Value 30 vs 75 |
| Technicals | FAST | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day 7.7% vs -10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FAST | Risk Resilience 75 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | FMC | Target upside -1.3% vs 31.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FAST and FMC 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 FAST.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FAST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FAST +9
- 58 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- FAST +7
- 58 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- FAST +25
- 65 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- FAST +18
- 61 vs 43
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.01%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.20%)
FAST 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 +0.63%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -5.63%, 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.
- 1FMC closes the Quality gap — currently 67 points behind, the largest single contributor to FAST's edge.
- 2FMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FAST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate FAST'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
FAST leads on balance| Metric | FAST | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 14.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 10% | 34.2% |
| Gross margin | 44.7% | 35.3% |
| Operating margin | 20.3% | -71.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 34% | -118.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.11 | 2.62 |
Performance
FAST leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FAST | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | -9.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.1% | 18% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.5% | 11.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.2% | -15.2% |
| Year to date | 22.1% | -12.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.7% | -68.1% |
Technicals
FAST has the stronger structure| Metric | FAST | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 62.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.7% | -10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.1% | 61.3% |
Risk
FAST is the more resilient| Metric | FAST | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.47 | 1.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.06 | -1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -73.9% |
| Current drawdown | -6.4% | -68.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.6% | 74.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FAST or FMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FAST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against FMC's 49. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. FMC 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 FAST or FMC the better buy right now?
FAST 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 FAST over FMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FAST leads Quality by 67 points; FMC leads Value by 45 points; FAST leads Risk Resilience by 40 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FAST or FMC?
Analyst price targets imply -1.3% upside for FAST and +31.6% for FMC, so the Street currently favors FMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FAST. 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, FAST or FMC?
FMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 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, FAST or FMC?
FMC 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, FAST or FMC?
FMC on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, FAST or FMC?
FAST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FAST on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 FAST more profitable than FMC?
FAST leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.7% vs 35.3%; operating margin 20.3% vs -71.6%; ttm roe 34% vs -118.6%.
Is FAST's lead over FMC getting stronger or weaker?
FAST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 9 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 FAST vs FMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FMC closes the Quality gap — currently 67 points behind, the largest single contributor to FAST's edge; FMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FAST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate FAST's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FAST and FMC?
FAST: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FMC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 FAST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FAST and FMC 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.