GAP vs GME Stock Comparison
GAP currently leads GME in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 47. The clearest difference is value, while GME has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between GAP and GME?
GAP leads the current stock comparison as The Gap, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Gap, Inc. vs GameStop Corp.
GAP leads
GAP leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GAP, and its lead is narrowing.
The Gap, Inc.
GameStop Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GAP over GME, 52 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. GAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while GME holds the stronger momentum profile. GAP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GAP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Gap, Inc. and GameStop Corp. 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 GAP and GME 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.
- Value67 vs 46GAP +21
- Momentum29 vs 49GME +20
- Quality61 vs 48GAP +13
- Risk Resilience40 vs 43Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GAP. GAP’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; GME keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
New signals
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GAP's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GAP and GME both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GAP (The Gap, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
GME (GameStop Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 40.8% against 30.1%.
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
GAPGAP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GMEGME on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GAPGAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
GMEGME on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
GAPGAP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GAPGAP 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 | GAP | GME | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.3% | -52.5% | GAP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +87.8% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | 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 GAP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GAP | 52 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | GAPon balance | revenue growth 4.4% vs -24.4%; EPS growth 53.3% vs 210.7%; TTM ROE 33.1% vs 14%; gross margin 43.3% vs 34.4%; operating margin 11% vs 10.6% — GAP takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GAP | Value 67 vs 46 |
| Technicals | GME | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 6.9%; vs 200-day -5% vs 3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | GAP | Target upside 12.3% vs -52.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GAP and GME 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 GAP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GAP +5
- 52 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- GAP +6
- 55 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- GAP +11
- 64 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- GAP +14
- 57 vs 43
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 15 when GME moved ahead of GAP.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GAP
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.24%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GME
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.55%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GME 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.49%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.96%, 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.
- 1GME closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge.
- 2GME's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate GAP'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
GAP leads on balance| Metric | GAP | GME |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.4% | -24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 53.3% | 210.7% |
| Gross margin | 43.3% | 34.4% |
| Operating margin | 11% | 10.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.1% | 14% |
| Debt to equity | 1.45 | 0.74 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | GAP | GME |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -11.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | 6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.3% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | -14.1% | 16.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -6.2% | 0.1% |
Technicals
GME has the stronger structure| Metric | GAP | GME |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.2 | 37.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20 | 40.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 6.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | 3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.1% | 40.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GAP | GME |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.08 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.1 | 0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -37% | -32.6% |
| Current drawdown | -24.5% | -16.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.1% | 38.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GAP or GME?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GAP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against GME's 47. The edge comes from value and quality. GME 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 GAP or GME the better buy right now?
GAP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GAP over GME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GAP leads Value by 21 points; GME leads Momentum by 20 points; GAP leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GAP or GME?
Analyst price targets imply +12.3% upside for GAP and -52.5% for GME, so the Street currently favors GAP. 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, GAP or GME?
GAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, GAP or GME?
GME 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, GAP or GME?
GME on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, GAP or GME?
GAP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GAP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GAP more profitable than GME?
GAP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 43.3% vs 34.4%; operating margin 11% vs 10.6%; ttm roe 33.1% vs 14%.
Is GAP's lead over GME getting stronger or weaker?
GAP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-15, when GME moved ahead of GAP.
What would change the GAP vs GME verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GME closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge; GME's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate GAP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GAP and GME?
GAP: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. GME: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 GAP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GME it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GAP and GME 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.