HPQ vs NTAP Stock Comparison
HPQ currently leads NTAP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 58. The clearest difference is momentum, while NTAP has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between HPQ and NTAP?
HPQ leads the current stock comparison as HP Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
HP Inc. vs NetApp, Inc.
HPQ leads
HPQ leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from NTAP. Wall Street currently favors NTAP on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support HPQ, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HPQ over NTAP, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 24, 2026. HPQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while NTAP holds the stronger quality profile. HPQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NTAP. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HPQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. HPQ lead: Reversed — NTAP led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HPQ now leads by 1.
Compare HP Inc. and NetApp, Inc. 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 HPQ and NTAP 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.
- Quality39 vs 70NTAP +31
- Momentum72 vs 49HPQ +23
- Value74 vs 61HPQ +13
- Risk Resilience44 vs 42Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor HPQ. HPQ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; NTAP keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-23, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-22.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
HPQ's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HPQ and NTAP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HPQ (HP Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
NTAP (NetApp, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
HPQHPQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HPQHPQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HPQHPQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
HPQHPQ on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
HPQHPQ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NTAPNTAP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HPQ, analyst targets favor NTAP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HPQ | NTAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -28.1% | -4.3% | NTAP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.1% | +72.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 10 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | HPQ | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.10% | 1.61% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.722 | $1.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.168 | $2.080 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #98 | #338 |
HPQ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.10% a year against NTAP's 1.61%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HPQ. 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 | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | NTAPon balance | revenue growth 8.8% vs 13.7%; EPS growth 46.9% vs 21.3%; TTM ROE -7.3% vs 114.2%; gross margin 19.8% vs 70.7%; operating margin 5.6% vs 24.1% — NTAP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HPQ | Value 74 vs 61 |
| Technicals | NTAP | Price vs 50-day 6.9% vs 5.9%; vs 200-day 38.7% vs 46.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | NTAP | Target upside -28.1% vs -4.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HPQ and NTAP 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 HPQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 24 – Oct 23HPQ lead: Reversed — NTAP led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HPQ now leads by 1.
- Today
- HPQ +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- NTAP +11
- 52 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- NTAP +15
- 53 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- NTAP +6
- 58 vs 64
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when HPQ moved ahead of NTAP.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only HPQ
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NTAP
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
HPQ 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.36%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.4%, 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.
- 1NTAP closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to HPQ's edge.
- 2NTAP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HPQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
NTAP leads on balance| Metric | HPQ | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.8% | 13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 46.9% | 21.3% |
| Gross margin | 19.8% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 5.6% | 24.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7.3% | 114.2% |
| Debt to equity | -112.38 | 2.02 |
Performance
NTAP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HPQ | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.1% | 5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.5% | 7.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 26.7% | 26.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 70% | 98.2% |
| Year to date | 51% | 101.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | 81% |
Technicals
NTAP has the stronger structure| Metric | HPQ | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 15.5 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.9% | 5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 38.7% | 46.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.4% | 48.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HPQ | NTAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.57 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 1.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.09 | 2.57 |
| Max drawdown | -35.2% | -21.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -9.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 46% | 45.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HPQ or NTAP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HPQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 24, 2026, scoring 59 against NTAP's 58. The edge comes from momentum and value. NTAP is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 HPQ or NTAP the better buy right now?
HPQ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 24, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HPQ over NTAP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NTAP leads Quality by 31 points; HPQ leads Momentum by 23 points; HPQ leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HPQ or NTAP?
Analyst price targets imply -28.1% upside for HPQ and -4.3% for NTAP, so the Street currently favors NTAP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HPQ. 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, HPQ or NTAP?
HPQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HPQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, HPQ or NTAP?
HPQ 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, HPQ or NTAP?
HPQ on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, HPQ or NTAP?
HPQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HPQ 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 HPQ more profitable than NTAP?
NTAP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 19.8% vs 70.7%; operating margin 5.6% vs 24.1%; ttm roe -7.3% vs 114.2%.
Is HPQ's lead over NTAP getting stronger or weaker?
HPQ lead: Reversed — NTAP led by 15 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HPQ now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-24 and 2026-10-23. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when HPQ moved ahead of NTAP.
What would change the HPQ vs NTAP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NTAP closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to HPQ's edge; NTAP generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HPQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 HPQ and NTAP?
HPQ: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. NTAP: 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 HPQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NTAP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HPQ and NTAP 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.