GT vs VC Stock Comparison
Compare GT and VC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GT and VC?
VC leads the current stock comparison as Visteon Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company vs Visteon Corporation
VC leads
VC leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 26 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GT on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support VC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company
Visteon Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VC over GT, 51 versus 40 as of Sep 6, 2026. VC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GT holds the stronger momentum profile. VC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company and Visteon 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 GT and VC 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.
- Quality30%8 vs 41VC +33
- Risk Resilience15%43 vs 65VC +22
- Momentum25%46 vs 35GT +11
- Value30%65 vs 66Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor VC. VC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
VC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GT and VC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VC (Visteon Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GT (The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42.2% against 22.1%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
VCVC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
VCVC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GTGT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
VCVC on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
GTGT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VC, analyst targets favor GT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GT | VC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.3% | +22.2% | GT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24% | +15.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VC | 40 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | VCon balance | EPS growth 17.4% vs 57.8%; TTM ROE -84.2% vs 9.7%; gross margin 18.3% vs 12.8%; operating margin 2.1% vs 7.4% — VC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 66 |
| Technicals | VC | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day -15.6% vs 0.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VC | Risk Resilience 43 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | GT | Target upside 33.3% vs 22.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GT and VC 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 11 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 VC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VC +11
- 40 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- VC +9
- 40 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- VC +26
- 34 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 44 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 26 when GT moved ahead of VC.
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 (12.22%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.42%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.73%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
VC 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 +2.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.36%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1GT closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to VC's edge.
- 2GT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VC'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 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate VC'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
VC leads on balance| Metric | GT | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.5% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 17.4% | 57.8% |
| Gross margin | 18.3% | 12.8% |
| Operating margin | 2.1% | 7.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -84.2% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.77 | 0.27 |
Performance
VC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GT | VC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.5% | -12.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.7% | 13.6% |
| Year to date | -28.7% | 7.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -25.6% | -16.4% |
Technicals
VC has the stronger structure| Metric | GT | VC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 34.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.8 | 12.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.6% | 0.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.2% | 22.1% |
Risk
VC is the more resilient| Metric | GT | VC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.53 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.79 | -0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -47.1% | -34.4% |
| Current drawdown | -40.7% | -20.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 45% | 38.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GT or VC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against GT's 40. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GT 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 GT or VC the better buy right now?
VC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 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 VC over GT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. VC leads Quality by 33 points; VC leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; GT leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GT or VC?
Analyst price targets imply +33.3% upside for GT and +22.2% for VC, so the Street currently favors GT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, GT or VC?
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, GT or VC?
VC 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, GT or VC?
GT on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, GT or VC?
VC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 GT more profitable than VC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 18.3% vs 12.8%; operating margin 2.1% vs 7.4%; ttm roe -84.2% vs 9.7%. GT leads on one measure and VC on two measures, 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 VC's lead over GT getting stronger or weaker?
VC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-26, when GT moved ahead of VC.
What would change the GT vs VC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GT closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to VC's edge; GT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VC'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 15 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate VC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GT and VC?
GT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VC: 1 bullish / 1 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 GT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GT and VC 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.