GDDY vs IBM Stock Comparison
GoDaddy Inc. vs International Business Machines Corporation
IBM leads
IBM leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support IBM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
GoDaddy Inc.
International Business Machines Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBM over GDDY, 58 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. IBM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GDDY holds the stronger momentum profile. IBM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. IBM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GoDaddy Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare GDDY and IBM 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.
- Momentum25%77 vs 49GDDY +28
- Quality30%35 vs 61IBM +26
- Risk Resilience15%37 vs 51IBM +14
- Value30%70 vs 67Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor IBM. IBM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GDDY keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
IBM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GDDY and IBM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBM (International Business Machines Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GDDY (GoDaddy Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 50.5% against 25.2%.
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
IBMIBM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GDDYGDDY on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
IBMIBM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
IBMIBM 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 | GDDY | IBM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.8% | +14.6% | IBM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.5% | +65% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 13 | 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 IBM. 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 | 56 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | IBMon balance | revenue growth 2.5% vs 7.8%; EPS growth 14.3% vs 76.9%; TTM ROE 6.6% vs 33.5%; gross margin 63.8% vs 58.4%; operating margin 25.2% vs 17.9% — IBM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 70 vs 67 |
| Technicals | GDDY | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs -10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | IBM | Risk Resilience 37 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | IBM | Target upside -13.8% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GDDY and IBM 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 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)
- 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 IBM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4IBM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IBM +2
- 56 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- IBM +3
- 54 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- IBM +8
- 54 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +7
- 54 vs 61
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when IBM moved ahead of GDDY.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.92%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.15%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.69%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
IBM 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 -2.24%, AIQ 0 points).
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).
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 Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge.
- 2GDDY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IBM'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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate IBM'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
IBM leads on balance| Metric | GDDY | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.3% | 76.9% |
| Gross margin | 63.8% | 58.4% |
| Operating margin | 25.2% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.6% | 33.5% |
| Debt to equity | 573.34 | 1.89 |
Performance
GDDY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GDDY | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.7% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.2% | -1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 20.1% | -17.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.8% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | -18.4% | -20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -29.4% | -3.8% |
Technicals
GDDY has the stronger structure| Metric | GDDY | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.3 | 56.6 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 8.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | -10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.5% | 25.2% |
Risk
IBM is the more resilient| Metric | GDDY | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.16 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.62 | 0.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.79 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -49.6% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -31.9% | -28.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.4% | 48.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GDDY or IBM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 58 against GDDY's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 GDDY or IBM the better buy right now?
IBM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBM over GDDY?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. GDDY leads Momentum by 28 points; IBM leads Quality by 26 points; IBM leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GDDY or IBM?
Analyst price targets imply -13.8% upside for GDDY and +14.6% for IBM, so the Street currently favors IBM. 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, GDDY or IBM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, GDDY or IBM?
IBM 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, GDDY or IBM?
GDDY on the Momentum factor, by 28 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, GDDY or IBM?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is GDDY more profitable than IBM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.8% vs 58.4%; operating margin 25.2% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 6.6% vs 33.5%. GDDY leads on two measures and IBM 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 IBM's lead over GDDY getting stronger or weaker?
IBM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when IBM moved ahead of GDDY.
What would change the GDDY vs IBM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GDDY closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge; GDDY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IBM'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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate IBM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GDDY and IBM?
GDDY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IBM: 1 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 GDDY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On IBM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GDDY and IBM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.