ITW vs MIDD Stock Comparison
ITW currently leads MIDD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 60. The clearest difference is quality, while MIDD has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ITW and MIDD?
ITW leads the current stock comparison as Illinois Tool Works Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Illinois Tool Works Inc. vs The Middleby Corporation
ITW leads
ITW leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors MIDD on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ITW, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Illinois Tool Works Inc.
The Middleby Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ITW over MIDD, 62 versus 60 as of Oct 31, 2026. ITW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while MIDD holds the stronger value profile. ITW also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MIDD. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ITW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ITW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Illinois Tool Works Inc. and The Middleby 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 ITW and MIDD 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.
- Quality60 vs 34ITW +26
- Value46 vs 70MIDD +24
- Momentum82 vs 76ITW +6
- Risk Resilience62 vs 65Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ITW. ITW’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; MIDD keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ITW's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ITW and MIDD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ITW (Illinois Tool Works Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
MIDD (The Middleby Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
ITWITW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MIDDMIDD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MIDDMIDD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
ITWITW on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
ITWITW carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MIDDMIDD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ITW, analyst targets favor MIDD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ITW | MIDD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.5% | +40.9% | MIDD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.1% | +35.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 8 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ITW. 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 | 62 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | ITWon balance | revenue growth 7.1% vs 4.2%; EPS growth 7.1% vs 213.2%; TTM ROE 101.7% vs -18.3%; gross margin 44.2% vs 38%; operating margin 26.5% vs -3.1% — ITW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MIDD | Value 46 vs 70 |
| Technicals | ITW | Price vs 50-day 2.6% vs 8.3%; vs 200-day 2.1% vs -17.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | MIDD | Target upside 2.5% vs 40.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ITW and MIDD 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ITW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ITW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ITW +2
- 62 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- ITW +1
- 61 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- ITW +2
- 50 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ITW +5
- 51 vs 46
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when ITW moved ahead of MIDD.
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, conflicted
Only ITW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MIDD
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (25.58%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ITW 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 -1.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.16%, 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.
- 1MIDD closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITW's edge.
- 2MIDD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ITW'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
ITW leads on balance| Metric | ITW | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.1% | 4.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.1% | 213.2% |
| Gross margin | 44.2% | 38% |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | -3.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 101.7% | -18.3% |
| Debt to equity | 3.35 | 0.9 |
Performance
ITW leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ITW | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.3% | 10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.7% | -14.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | -17.9% |
| Year to date | 12.1% | -23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | -14% |
Technicals
ITW has the stronger structure| Metric | ITW | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.4 | 80.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 28.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.6% | 8.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.1% | -17.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 18.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ITW | MIDD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.48 | 1.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | -0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -42.7% |
| Current drawdown | -7.8% | -36.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.2% | 41% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ITW or MIDD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ITW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against MIDD's 60. The edge comes from quality and momentum. MIDD 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 ITW or MIDD the better buy right now?
ITW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ITW over MIDD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ITW leads Quality by 26 points; MIDD leads Value by 24 points; ITW leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ITW or MIDD?
Analyst price targets imply +2.5% upside for ITW and +40.9% for MIDD, so the Street currently favors MIDD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ITW. 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, ITW or MIDD?
MIDD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MIDD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, ITW or MIDD?
MIDD 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, ITW or MIDD?
ITW on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, ITW or MIDD?
ITW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ITW 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 ITW more profitable than MIDD?
ITW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.2% vs 38%; operating margin 26.5% vs -3.1%; ttm roe 101.7% vs -18.3%.
Is ITW's lead over MIDD getting stronger or weaker?
ITW lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-22, when ITW moved ahead of MIDD.
What would change the ITW vs MIDD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MIDD closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to ITW's edge; MIDD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ITW'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 ITW and MIDD?
ITW: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MIDD: 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 ITW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MIDD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ITW and MIDD 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.