FDS vs ICE Stock Comparison
Compare FDS and ICE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FDS and ICE?
ICE leads the current stock comparison as Intercontinental Exchange, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FactSet Research Systems Inc. vs Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
ICE leads
ICE leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from FDS.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ICE, and the lead recently changed hands.
FactSet Research Systems Inc.
Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ICE over FDS, 51 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. ICE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while FDS holds the stronger value profile. ICE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ICE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. ICE lead: Reversed — FDS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ICE now leads by 11.
Compare FactSet Research Systems Inc. and Intercontinental Exchange, 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 FDS and ICE 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.
- Momentum16 vs 54ICE +38
- Risk Resilience35 vs 66ICE +31
- Value35 vs 28FDS +7
- Quality68 vs 63FDS +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ICE. ICE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; FDS 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 -25
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
ICE's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FDS and ICE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ICE (Intercontinental Exchange, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FDS (FactSet Research Systems Inc.): the counter-case, on value, quality, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.2% against 24.4%.
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
ICEICE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FDSFDS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FDSFDS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
ICEICE on the Momentum factor, by 38 points.
Lower downside
ICEICE on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
ICEICE 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 | FDS | ICE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.3% | +21.1% | ICE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.7% | +28.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | 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 ICE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ICE | 40 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | FDSon balance | revenue growth 1.9% vs -1.5%; EPS growth -2.2% vs -31.7%; TTM ROE 26.6% vs 13.8%; gross margin 51.4% vs 73.4%; operating margin 29.6% vs 44.9% — FDS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FDS | Value 35 vs 28 |
| Technicals | ICE | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs 5%; vs 200-day 5.2% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | ICE | Risk Resilience 35 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | ICE | Target upside -1.3% vs 21.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FDS and ICE 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ICE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ICE lead: Reversed — FDS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ICE now leads by 11.
- Today
- ICE +11
- 40 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- FDS +4
- 58 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- FDS +11
- 58 vs 47
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when FDS moved ahead of ICE.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.27%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.56%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FDS is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -1.22%, AIQ -7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.02%, 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.
- 1FDS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICE's edge.
- 2FDS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ICE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
FDS leads on balance| Metric | FDS | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.9% | -1.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.2% | -31.7% |
| Gross margin | 51.4% | 73.4% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 44.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.6% | 13.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 0.69 |
Performance
ICE leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FDS | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.1% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | 3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.6% | 11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.9% | -0.8% |
| Year to date | -9.4% | -3.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29.9% | -10.4% |
Technicals
ICE has the stronger structure| Metric | FDS | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 26.3 | 36.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.2% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.2% | 24.4% |
Risk
ICE is the more resilient| Metric | FDS | ICE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.57 | -0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.79 | -0.62 |
| Max drawdown | -49% | -30.2% |
| Current drawdown | -29.5% | -11.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.9% | 25.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FDS or ICE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ICE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against FDS's 40. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. FDS 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 FDS or ICE the better buy right now?
ICE 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ICE over FDS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ICE leads Momentum by 38 points; ICE leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; FDS leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FDS or ICE?
Analyst price targets imply -1.3% upside for FDS and +21.1% for ICE, so the Street currently favors ICE. 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, FDS or ICE?
FDS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FDS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, FDS or ICE?
FDS 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, FDS or ICE?
ICE on the Momentum factor, by 38 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, FDS or ICE?
ICE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ICE on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 FDS more profitable than ICE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.4% vs 73.4%; operating margin 29.6% vs 44.9%; ttm roe 26.6% vs 13.8%. FDS leads on one measure and ICE on two measures, 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 ICE's lead over FDS getting stronger or weaker?
ICE lead: Reversed — FDS led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ICE now leads by 11. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when FDS moved ahead of ICE.
What would change the FDS vs ICE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FDS closes the Momentum gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to ICE's edge; FDS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ICE starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 FDS and ICE?
FDS: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ICE: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. 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 FDS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ICE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FDS and ICE 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.