NOW vs IBM Stock Comparison
IBM currently leads NOW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 67 vs 56. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between NOW and IBM?
IBM leads the current stock comparison as International Business Machines Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ServiceNow, Inc. vs International Business Machines Corporation
IBM leads
IBM leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from NOW. Wall Street currently favors NOW on target upside.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support IBM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ServiceNow, Inc.
International Business Machines Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBM over NOW, 67 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. IBM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. IBM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NOW. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IBM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. IBM lead: Reversed — NOW led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBM now leads by 11.
Compare ServiceNow, Inc. and International Business Machines Corporation 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 NOW 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.
- Value37 vs 65IBM +28
- Momentum74 vs 87IBM +13
- Risk Resilience47 vs 52IBM +5
- Quality64 vs 61Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor IBM. IBM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
IBM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOW and IBM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBM (International Business Machines Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
NOW (ServiceNow, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 38.9% against 24.8%.
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
IBMIBM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IBMIBM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IBMIBM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
IBMIBM on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
IBMIBM on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
NOWNOW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors IBM, analyst targets favor NOW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NOW | IBM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +56.3% | +2.1% | NOW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +94.9% | +66.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 15 | 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
5 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 | IBM | 56 vs 67 |
| Fundamentals | IBMon balance | TTM ROE 13.8% vs 32.9%; gross margin 74.8% vs 58%; operating margin 11.4% vs 18% — IBM takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IBM | Value 37 vs 65 |
| Technicals | IBM | Price vs 50-day -24.7% vs 10.1%; vs 200-day 30.2% vs 1.4% |
| Risk Resilience | IBM | Risk Resilience 47 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | NOW | Target upside 56.3% vs 2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NOW 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 · Jun 29 – Oct 28IBM lead: Reversed — NOW led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBM now leads by 11.
- Today
- IBM +11
- 56 vs 67
- 7 sessions ago
- IBM +10
- 58 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- NOW +1
- 52 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- IBM +1
- 55 vs 56
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when IBM moved ahead of NOW.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only NOW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.04%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only IBM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.57%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -4.15%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.18%, 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.
- 1NOW closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge.
- 2NOW's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3IBM'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
IBM leads on balance| Metric | NOW | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | -0.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -35.6% | 0.9% |
| Gross margin | 74.8% | 58% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | 18% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.8% | 32.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 1.89 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | NOW | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12% | 15.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 36.4% | 14.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 68.9% | 11.5% |
| Year to date | -2% | -14.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.3% | -17.6% |
Technicals
IBM has the stronger structure| Metric | NOW | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.3 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 34.8 | 24.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -24.7% | 10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30.2% | 1.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.9% | 24.8% |
Risk
IBM is the more resilient| Metric | NOW | IBM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.85 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.16 | -0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.23 | -0.29 |
| Max drawdown | -55.8% | -37.5% |
| Current drawdown | -20% | -23.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 58.1% | 48.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOW or IBM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 67 against NOW's 56. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 NOW or IBM the better buy right now?
IBM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBM over NOW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IBM leads Value by 28 points; IBM leads Momentum by 13 points; IBM leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NOW or IBM?
Analyst price targets imply +56.3% upside for NOW and +2.1% for IBM, so the Street currently favors NOW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IBM. 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, NOW or IBM?
IBM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IBM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, NOW 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, NOW or IBM?
IBM on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, NOW or IBM?
IBM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IBM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 NOW more profitable than IBM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.8% vs 58%; operating margin 11.4% vs 18%; ttm roe 13.8% vs 32.9%. NOW leads on one measure and IBM 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 IBM's lead over NOW getting stronger or weaker?
IBM lead: Reversed — NOW led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBM now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when IBM moved ahead of NOW.
What would change the NOW vs IBM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NOW closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBM's edge; NOW's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; IBM'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 NOW and IBM?
NOW: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. IBM: 2 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 NOW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IBM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NOW and IBM 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.