GRNY vs TU Stock Comparison
GRNY currently leads TU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while TU has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GRNY and TU?
GRNY leads the current stock comparison as Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF vs Telus Corp
GRNY leads
GRNY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support GRNY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF
Telus Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRNY over TU, 49 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. GRNY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while TU holds the stronger value profile. GRNY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor GRNY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. GRNY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF and Telus 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 GRNY and TU 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.
- Quality58 vs 17GRNY +41
- Risk Resilience73 vs 45GRNY +28
- Value36 vs 59TU +23
- Momentum41 vs 43Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor GRNY. GRNY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; TU keeps a meaningful value 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: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GRNY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GRNY and TU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRNY (Tidal Trust III - Fundstrat Granny Shots US Large Cap ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
TU (Telus Corp): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 31.8% against 13.7%.
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
GRNYGRNY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TUTU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GRNYGRNY on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 | GRNY | TU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +31.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor GRNY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GRNY | 49 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TU | Value 36 vs 59 |
| Technicals | GRNY | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day 3% vs -26.6% |
| Risk Resilience | GRNY | Risk Resilience 73 vs 45 |
| 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 GRNY and TU 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 GRNY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GRNY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRNY +9
- 49 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- GRNY +10
- 49 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- GRNY +18
- 55 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- GRNY +19
- 54 vs 35
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when GRNY moved ahead of TU.
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
Only GRNY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.20%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TU
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.58%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
GRNY 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 +1.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.95%, 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.
- 1TU closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRNY's edge.
- 2TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GRNY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate GRNY'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
Split| Metric | GRNY | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | — | -1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | — | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | — | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | — | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | — | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | — | 2.37 |
Performance
GRNY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GRNY | TU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.1% | 5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.5% | -17.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.9% | -31.2% |
| Year to date | 10.4% | -35.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.9% | -43.9% |
Technicals
GRNY has the stronger structure| Metric | GRNY | TU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.2 | 51.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 39.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3% | -26.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.7% | 31.8% |
Risk
GRNY is the more resilient| Metric | GRNY | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.28 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.35 | -2.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | -2.77 |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -49.6% |
| Current drawdown | -4.9% | -44.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 17.9% | 25.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GRNY or TU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRNY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against TU's 40. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. TU is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 GRNY or TU the better buy right now?
GRNY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GRNY over TU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRNY leads Quality by 41 points; GRNY leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; TU leads Value by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GRNY or TU?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for GRNY and +31.3% for TU. 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, GRNY or TU?
TU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, GRNY or TU?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, GRNY or TU?
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, GRNY or TU?
GRNY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRNY on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 GRNY more profitable than TU?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is GRNY's lead over TU getting stronger or weaker?
GRNY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when GRNY moved ahead of TU.
What would change the GRNY vs TU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TU closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRNY's edge; TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GRNY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate GRNY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GRNY and TU?
GRNY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TU: 1 bullish / 2 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 GRNY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
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.