FFIV vs GDDY Stock Comparison
FFIV currently leads GDDY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 58. The clearest difference is quality, while GDDY has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FFIV and GDDY?
FFIV leads the current stock comparison as F5, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
F5, Inc. vs GoDaddy Inc.
FFIV leads
FFIV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FFIV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FFIV over GDDY, 64 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. FFIV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GDDY holds the stronger momentum profile. FFIV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FFIV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare F5, Inc. and GoDaddy Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare FFIV and GDDY 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.
- Quality79 vs 35FFIV +44
- Momentum56 vs 81GDDY +25
- Risk Resilience66 vs 44FFIV +22
- Value56 vs 70GDDY +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FFIV. FFIV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GDDY keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Risk Resilience -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
FFIV's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FFIV and GDDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FFIV (F5, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GDDY (GoDaddy Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.5% against 31.4%.
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
FFIVFFIV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FFIVFFIV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GDDYGDDY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
GDDYGDDY on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
FFIVFFIV on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FFIV | GDDY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.7% | -14.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +46.2% | +47.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 6 | 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 FFIV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FFIV | 64 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | FFIVon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 40.6% vs 14.3%; TTM ROE 19.9% vs 6.6%; gross margin 82.2% vs 63.8%; operating margin 24.5% vs 25.2% — FFIV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GDDY | Value 56 vs 70 |
| Technicals | FFIV | Price vs 50-day 7.7% vs 9.3%; vs 200-day 27.8% vs 16.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FFIV | Risk Resilience 66 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside -13.7% vs -14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FFIV and GDDY 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 6 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 FFIV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FFIV +6
- 64 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- FFIV +9
- 67 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FFIV +22
- 70 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- FFIV +12
- 60 vs 48
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when GDDY moved ahead of FFIV.
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, conflicted
Only FFIV
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GDDY
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
FFIV 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.41%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.53%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1GDDY closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge.
- 2GDDY's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FFIV'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 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FFIV'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
FFIV leads on balance| Metric | FFIV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.6% | 14.3% |
| Gross margin | 82.2% | 63.8% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 25.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.9% | 6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 573.34 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FFIV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | 5.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.7% | 10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14% | 21.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 44.7% | 22.8% |
| Year to date | 78.9% | -12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49.2% | -16.8% |
Technicals
FFIV has the stronger structure| Metric | FFIV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 76.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.7% | 9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 27.8% | 16.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.4% | 40.5% |
Risk
FFIV is the more resilient| Metric | FFIV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.24 | -0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.91 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -44.5% |
| Current drawdown | -4.8% | -19.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 49.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FFIV or GDDY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FFIV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against GDDY's 58. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GDDY 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 FFIV or GDDY the better buy right now?
FFIV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 FFIV over GDDY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FFIV leads Quality by 44 points; GDDY leads Momentum by 25 points; FFIV leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FFIV or GDDY?
Analyst price targets imply -13.7% upside for FFIV and -14.6% for GDDY. 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, FFIV or GDDY?
GDDY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GDDY 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, FFIV or GDDY?
FFIV 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, FFIV or GDDY?
GDDY on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, FFIV or GDDY?
FFIV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FFIV on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 FFIV more profitable than GDDY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.2% vs 63.8%; operating margin 24.5% vs 25.2%; ttm roe 19.9% vs 6.6%. FFIV leads on two measures and GDDY 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 FFIV's lead over GDDY getting stronger or weaker?
FFIV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when GDDY moved ahead of FFIV.
What would change the FFIV vs GDDY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GDDY closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to FFIV's edge; GDDY's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FFIV'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 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FFIV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FFIV and GDDY?
FFIV: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GDDY: 5 bullish / 1 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 FFIV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GDDY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FFIV and GDDY 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.