HWM vs KTOS Stock Comparison
Compare HWM and KTOS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HWM and KTOS?
HWM leads the current stock comparison as Howmet Aerospace Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Howmet Aerospace Inc. vs Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
HWM leads
HWM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors KTOS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HWM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Howmet Aerospace Inc.
Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HWM over KTOS, 40 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. HWM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while KTOS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. HWM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors KTOS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HWM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. HWM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Howmet Aerospace Inc. and Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, 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 HWM and KTOS 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.
- Quality68 vs 40HWM +28
- Risk Resilience48 vs 60KTOS +12
- Momentum18 vs 22KTOS +4
- Value25 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HWM. HWM’s edge is concentrated in quality; KTOS 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
HWM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HWM and KTOS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HWM (Howmet Aerospace Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
KTOS (Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, analyst expectations.
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
HWMHWM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HWMHWM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
KTOSKTOS on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
KTOSKTOS on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
KTOSKTOS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HWM, analyst targets favor KTOS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HWM | KTOS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +42.3% | +115.9% | KTOS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.5% | +59.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 12 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HWM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HWM | 40 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | HWMon balance | revenue growth 10.1% vs 23.7%; EPS growth -8.3% vs -70.3%; TTM ROE 34.4% vs 1.1%; gross margin 34.4% vs 22%; operating margin 28.3% vs 1.5% — HWM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 25 vs 25 |
| Technicals | HWM | Price vs 50-day -15.9% vs -10.7%; vs 200-day -5.7% vs -34.1% |
| Risk Resilience | KTOS | Risk Resilience 48 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | KTOS | Target upside 42.3% vs 115.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HWM and KTOS 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 HWM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10HWM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HWM +6
- 40 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- HWM +7
- 41 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- HWM +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- HWM +16
- 52 vs 36
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when KTOS moved ahead of HWM.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.00%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (36.31%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
HWM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.75%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.62%, 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.
- 1KTOS closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to HWM's edge.
- 2KTOS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
HWM leads on balance| Metric | HWM | KTOS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.1% | 23.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | -70.3% |
| Gross margin | 34.4% | 22% |
| Operating margin | 28.3% | 1.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 34.4% | 1.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 0.06 |
Performance
HWM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HWM | KTOS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.7% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.1% | -26.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.3% | -14.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.5% | -47.2% |
| Year to date | 11.2% | -38.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.1% | -26.8% |
Technicals
HWM has the stronger structure| Metric | HWM | KTOS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 25.9 | 19.7 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 21.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.9% | -10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.7% | -34.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45% | 42.3% |
Risk
KTOS is the more resilient| Metric | HWM | KTOS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.14 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -22.1% | -66.4% |
| Current drawdown | -22.1% | -64.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 34.1% | 72.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -7.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HWM or KTOS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HWM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against KTOS's 34. The edge comes from quality. KTOS 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 HWM or KTOS the better buy right now?
HWM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HWM over KTOS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HWM leads Quality by 28 points; KTOS leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; KTOS leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HWM or KTOS?
Analyst price targets imply +42.3% upside for HWM and +115.9% for KTOS, so the Street currently favors KTOS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HWM. 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, HWM or KTOS?
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, HWM or KTOS?
HWM 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, HWM or KTOS?
KTOS on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, HWM or KTOS?
KTOS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KTOS on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 HWM more profitable than KTOS?
HWM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.4% vs 22%; operating margin 28.3% vs 1.5%; ttm roe 34.4% vs 1.1%.
Is HWM's lead over KTOS getting stronger or weaker?
HWM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when KTOS moved ahead of HWM.
What would change the HWM vs KTOS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KTOS closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to HWM's edge; KTOS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HWM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 HWM and KTOS?
HWM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KTOS: 1 bullish / 4 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 HWM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KTOS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HWM and KTOS 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.