FIVE vs HAS Stock Comparison
HAS currently leads FIVE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 48. The clearest difference is momentum, while FIVE has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FIVE and HAS?
HAS leads the current stock comparison as Hasbro, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Five Below, Inc. vs Hasbro, Inc.
HAS leads
HAS leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors FIVE on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HAS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Five Below, Inc.
Hasbro, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAS over FIVE, 62 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. HAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while FIVE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FIVE. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HAS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Five Below, Inc. and Hasbro, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FIVE and HAS 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 84HAS +26
- Risk Resilience62 vs 42FIVE +20
- Value27 vs 44HAS +17
- Quality54 vs 70HAS +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HAS. HAS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; FIVE keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -10, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
HAS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FIVE and HAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAS (Hasbro, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
FIVE (Five Below, 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
HASHAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HASHAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HASHAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
HASHAS on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
FIVEFIVE on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
FIVEFIVE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HAS, analyst targets favor FIVE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FIVE | HAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.4% | -7.7% | FIVE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73% | +36.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 16 | 5 | 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 HAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAS | 48 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | HAS | revenue growth -25.6% vs 13.9%; EPS growth -48.4% vs -19.9%; TTM ROE 21.1% vs 138.4%; gross margin 34.8% vs 70.3%; operating margin 11% vs 23.9% |
| Valuation | HAS | Value 27 vs 44 |
| Technicals | HAS | Price vs 50-day -4.1% vs 22.9%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 13.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FIVE | Risk Resilience 62 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | FIVE | Target upside 25.4% vs -7.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FIVE and HAS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 HAS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAS +14
- 48 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- HAS +16
- 46 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- HAS +14
- 38 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- HAS +1
- 55 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when HAS moved ahead of FIVE.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FIVE
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.58%)
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only HAS
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
HAS 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 +0.13%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.09%, 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.
- 1FIVE closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge.
- 2FIVE's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HAS'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
HAS leads on balance| Metric | FIVE | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -25.6% | 13.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48.4% | -19.9% |
| Gross margin | 34.8% | 70.3% |
| Operating margin | 11% | 23.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.1% | 138.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.86 | 5.06 |
Performance
HAS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FIVE | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.9% | 10.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 20.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.2% | 23% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.6% | 20.3% |
| Year to date | 18.8% | 24.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 47.3% | 40.8% |
Technicals
HAS has the stronger structure| Metric | FIVE | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.6 | 84.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.8 | 32.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.1% | 22.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 13.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.5% | 43.4% |
Risk
FIVE is the more resilient| Metric | FIVE | HAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | 1.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.48 | 2.24 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -28.4% |
| Current drawdown | -14.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.4% | 32.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FIVE or HAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against FIVE's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. FIVE 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 FIVE or HAS the better buy right now?
HAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAS over FIVE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HAS leads Momentum by 26 points; FIVE leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; HAS leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FIVE or HAS?
Analyst price targets imply +25.4% upside for FIVE and -7.7% for HAS, so the Street currently favors FIVE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HAS. 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, FIVE or HAS?
HAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, FIVE or HAS?
HAS 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, FIVE or HAS?
HAS on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, FIVE or HAS?
FIVE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FIVE on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FIVE more profitable than HAS?
HAS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.8% vs 70.3%; operating margin 11% vs 23.9%; ttm roe 21.1% vs 138.4%.
Is HAS's lead over FIVE getting stronger or weaker?
HAS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-21, when HAS moved ahead of FIVE.
What would change the FIVE vs HAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIVE closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAS's edge; FIVE's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HAS'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 FIVE and HAS?
FIVE: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HAS: 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 FIVE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HAS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FIVE and HAS 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.