FISV vs GDDY Stock Comparison
FISV currently leads GDDY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 58. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while GDDY has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FISV and GDDY?
FISV leads the current stock comparison as Fiserv, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fiserv, Inc. vs GoDaddy Inc.
FISV leads
FISV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FISV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fiserv, Inc.
GoDaddy Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FISV over GDDY, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. FISV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while GDDY holds the stronger momentum profile. FISV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fiserv, 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 FISV 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.
- Momentum58 vs 81GDDY +23
- Risk Resilience58 vs 44FISV +14
- Quality46 vs 35FISV +11
- Value74 vs 70FISV +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FISV. FISV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; 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: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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
FISV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FISV and GDDY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FISV (Fiserv, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
GDDY (GoDaddy Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 40.5% against 23.5%.
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
FISVFISV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GDDYGDDY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FISVFISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
GDDYGDDY on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
FISVFISV on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
FISVFISV 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 | FISV | GDDY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.8% | -14.6% | FISV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.6% | +47.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FISV. 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 | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | GDDYon balance | revenue growth 5.3% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 9.3% vs 14.3%; TTM ROE 10.8% vs 6.6%; gross margin 47.2% vs 63.8%; operating margin 21.4% vs 25.2% — GDDY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FISV | Value 74 vs 70 |
| Technicals | GDDY | Price vs 50-day -2.1% vs 9.3%; vs 200-day -13% vs 16.2% |
| Risk Resilience | FISV | Risk Resilience 58 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | FISV | Target upside 26.8% vs -14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FISV 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 FISV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FISV +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- GDDY +2
- 56 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FISV +2
- 50 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- FISV +7
- 55 vs 48
The lead changed hands 15 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when GDDY moved ahead of FISV.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FISV
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.65%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GDDY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.54%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
FISV 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge.
- 2GDDY's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FISV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
GDDY leads on balance| Metric | FISV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 14.3% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 63.8% |
| Operating margin | 21.4% | 25.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.8% | 6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 573.34 |
Performance
GDDY leads 5 of 5 windows| Metric | FISV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.4% | 5.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.7% | 10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.9% | 21.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.7% | 22.8% |
| Year to date | -28.2% | -12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | -16.8% |
Technicals
GDDY has the stronger structure| Metric | FISV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.9 | 76.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.1 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.1% | 9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13% | 16.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.5% | 40.5% |
Risk
FISV is the more resilient| Metric | FISV | GDDY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.73 | -0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.02 | -0.22 |
| Max drawdown | -36.5% | -44.5% |
| Current drawdown | -30.9% | -19.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.6% | 49.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FISV or GDDY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FISV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against GDDY's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 FISV or GDDY the better buy right now?
FISV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FISV over GDDY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GDDY leads Momentum by 23 points; FISV leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; FISV leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FISV or GDDY?
Analyst price targets imply +26.8% upside for FISV and -14.6% for GDDY, so the Street currently favors FISV. 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, FISV or GDDY?
FISV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FISV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, FISV or GDDY?
GDDY 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, FISV or GDDY?
GDDY on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, FISV or GDDY?
FISV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FISV 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 FISV more profitable than GDDY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47.2% vs 63.8%; operating margin 21.4% vs 25.2%; ttm roe 10.8% vs 6.6%. FISV leads on one measure and GDDY 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 FISV's lead over GDDY getting stronger or weaker?
FISV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 15 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when GDDY moved ahead of FISV.
What would change the FISV vs GDDY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GDDY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to FISV's edge; GDDY's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FISV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 FISV and GDDY?
FISV: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 FISV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GDDY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FISV 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.