FOXA vs NWS Stock Comparison
Compare FOXA and NWS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FOXA and NWS?
FOXA leads the current stock comparison as Fox Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fox Corporation vs News Corporation
FOXA leads
FOXA leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support FOXA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fox Corporation
News Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FOXA over NWS, 57 versus 51 as of Sep 11, 2026. FOXA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while NWS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FOXA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FOXA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. FOXA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fox Corporation and News 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 FOXA and NWS 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.
- Value61 vs 36FOXA +25
- Risk Resilience58 vs 69NWS +11
- Quality57 vs 57Even
- Momentum52 vs 52Even
2 of 5 evidence groups favor FOXA. FOXA’s edge is concentrated in value; NWS keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
FOXA's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FOXA and NWS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FOXA (Fox Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
NWS (News Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
FOXAFOXA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NWSNWS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FOXAFOXA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NWSNWS on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | FOXA | NWS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +31.2% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor FOXA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FOXA | 57 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | NWSon balance | revenue growth 5.5% vs 7%; EPS growth 3.2% vs 106.3%; TTM ROE 14.7% vs 6.6%; gross margin 49.4% vs 56.9%; operating margin 24.5% vs 11.4% — NWS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FOXA | Value 61 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7.1% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs 9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | NWS | Risk Resilience 58 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FOXA and NWS 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.
- Only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
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 FOXA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FOXA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FOXA +6
- 57 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FOXA +9
- 65 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- NWS +1
- 54 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when FOXA moved ahead of NWS.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.07%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
FOXA 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 +1.17%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.21%, 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.
- 1NWS closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FOXA's edge.
- 2NWS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FOXA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FOXA'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
NWS leads on balance| Metric | FOXA | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 106.3% |
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 56.9% |
| Operating margin | 24.5% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.7% | 6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 0.34 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FOXA | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.4% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.1% | 6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.9% | 19.5% |
| Year to date | -10.8% | 10.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.3% | -3.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | FOXA | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.4 | 40.1 |
| ADX (14) | 25.7 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.1% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | 9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.3% | 20.6% |
Risk
NWS is the more resilient| Metric | FOXA | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.15 | 0.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.37 | 0.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.43 | 0.04 |
| Max drawdown | -35.9% | -25.8% |
| Current drawdown | -14.4% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FOXA or NWS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FOXA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against NWS's 51. The edge comes from value. NWS 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 FOXA or NWS the better buy right now?
FOXA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FOXA over NWS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FOXA leads Value by 25 points; NWS leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FOXA or NWS?
Analyst price targets imply +7% upside for FOXA and not covered for NWS. 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, FOXA or NWS?
FOXA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FOXA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, FOXA or NWS?
NWS 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, FOXA or NWS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, FOXA or NWS?
NWS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWS on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 FOXA more profitable than NWS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 49.4% vs 56.9%; operating margin 24.5% vs 11.4%; ttm roe 14.7% vs 6.6%. FOXA leads on two measures and NWS 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 FOXA's lead over NWS getting stronger or weaker?
FOXA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when FOXA moved ahead of NWS.
What would change the FOXA vs NWS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NWS closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FOXA's edge; NWS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FOXA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate FOXA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FOXA and NWS?
FOXA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NWS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 FOXA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NWS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FOXA and NWS 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.