GAP vs KMX Stock Comparison
Compare GAP and KMX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GAP and KMX?
GAP leads the current stock comparison as The Gap, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Gap, Inc. vs CarMax, Inc.
GAP leads
GAP leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GAP, and its lead is widening.
The Gap, Inc.
CarMax, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GAP over KMX, 58 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. GAP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while KMX holds the stronger risk resilience profile. GAP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GAP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. GAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Gap, Inc. and CarMax, Inc. 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 GAP and KMX 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.
- Quality61 vs 8GAP +53
- Risk Resilience29 vs 58KMX +29
- Value67 vs 52GAP +15
- Momentum61 vs 58Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GAP. GAP’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; KMX 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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No new signals fired.
GAP's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GAP and KMX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GAP (The Gap, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
KMX (CarMax, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals.
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
KMXKMX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GAPGAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KMXKMX on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
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 | KMX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.3% | -23.6% | GAP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +87.2% | +85.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | 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 | 58 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | GAPon balance | revenue growth 4.4% vs 34.8%; EPS growth 53.3% vs 270.1%; TTM ROE 33.1% vs 3.7%; gross margin 43.3% vs 10.2%; operating margin 11% vs -1.9% — GAP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GAP | Value 67 vs 52 |
| Technicals | KMX | Price vs 50-day 5.5% vs 5.2%; vs 200-day -12.5% vs 29.6% |
| Risk Resilience | KMX | Risk Resilience 29 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | GAP | Target upside 17.3% vs -23.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GAP and KMX 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 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GAP +17
- 58 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- GAP +14
- 60 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- GAP +8
- 52 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- GAP +8
- 48 vs 40
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.18%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.23%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.82%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
KMX 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1KMX closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge.
- 2KMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
GAP leads on balance| Metric | GAP | KMX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.4% | 34.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 53.3% | 270.1% |
| Gross margin | 43.3% | 10.2% |
| Operating margin | 11% | -1.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 33.1% | 3.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.45 | 3.05 |
Performance
KMX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GAP | KMX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.3% | 3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | 24.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.2% | 42.4% |
| Year to date | -18.3% | 56.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13.4% | -1.4% |
Technicals
KMX has the stronger structure| Metric | GAP | KMX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.5 | 47.8 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.5% | 5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.5% | 29.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.6% | 31.3% |
Risk
KMX is the more resilient| Metric | GAP | KMX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.2 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.15 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | 0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -37% | -49.7% |
| Current drawdown | -28.2% | -5.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.1% | 54.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GAP or KMX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GAP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against KMX's 41. The edge comes from quality and value. KMX 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 GAP or KMX the better buy right now?
GAP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 GAP over KMX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GAP leads Quality by 53 points; KMX leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; GAP leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GAP or KMX?
Analyst price targets imply +17.3% upside for GAP and -23.6% for KMX, 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 KMX?
GAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 KMX?
KMX 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 KMX?
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, GAP or KMX?
KMX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KMX on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 GAP more profitable than KMX?
GAP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 43.3% vs 10.2%; operating margin 11% vs -1.9%; ttm roe 33.1% vs 3.7%.
Is GAP's lead over KMX getting stronger or weaker?
GAP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GAP vs KMX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KMX closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to GAP's edge; KMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GAP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GAP and KMX?
GAP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. KMX: 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 GAP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KMX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GAP and KMX 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.