JD vs YMM Stock Comparison
JD.com, Inc. vs Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
YMM leads
YMM leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support YMM.
JD.com, Inc.
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YMM over JD, 59 versus 45 as of Sep 5, 2026. YMM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. YMM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YMM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. YMM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare JD.com, Inc. and Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare JD and YMM 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%36 vs 70YMM +34
- Momentum25%27 vs 36YMM +9
- Risk Resilience15%51 vs 60YMM +9
- Value30%65 vs 67Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor YMM. YMM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
YMM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JD and YMM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
YMM (Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JD (JD.com, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
YMMYMM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
JDJD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
YMMYMM on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
YMMYMM on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
YMMYMM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | JD | YMM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27% | +31.9% | YMM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.6% | +29.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YMM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YMM | 45 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | YMMon balance | revenue growth 10.1% vs 18.4%; EPS growth 42.5% vs 8.2%; TTM ROE 6.6% vs 10.6%; gross margin 14.7% vs 65.9% — YMM takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 67 |
| Technicals | JD | Price vs 50-day -3.9% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -4.8% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | YMM | Risk Resilience 51 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | YMM | Target upside 27% vs 31.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JD and YMM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 YMM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4YMM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YMM +14
- 45 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- YMM +13
- 43 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- YMM +13
- 49 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- YMM +15
- 44 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
JD is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.82%, 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.
- 1JD closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge.
- 2JD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3YMM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
YMM leads on balance| Metric | JD | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.1% | 18.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.5% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 14.7% | 65.9% |
| Operating margin | 0.2% | 33.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.6% | 10.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.48 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | JD | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.6% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.5% | -10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5% | -3.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.9% | -4% |
| Year to date | -3.3% | -20% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.2% | -35% |
Technicals
JD has the stronger structure| Metric | JD | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.3 | 43.5 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.9% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.8% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.6% | 33.3% |
Risk
YMM is the more resilient| Metric | JD | YMM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.8 | 1.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.32 | -1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.56 | -1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -30.4% | -46.1% |
| Current drawdown | -23.3% | -38.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 37.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JD or YMM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, YMM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 59 against JD's 45. The edge comes from quality 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 JD or YMM the better buy right now?
YMM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor YMM over JD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. YMM leads Quality by 34 points; YMM leads Momentum by 9 points; YMM leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JD or YMM?
Analyst price targets imply +27% upside for JD and +31.9% for YMM, so the Street currently favors YMM. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, JD or YMM?
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, JD or YMM?
JD 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, JD or YMM?
YMM on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, JD or YMM?
YMM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. YMM on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 JD more profitable than YMM?
YMM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 14.7% vs 65.9%; operating margin 0.2% vs 33.6%; ttm roe 6.6% vs 10.6%.
Is YMM's lead over JD getting stronger or weaker?
YMM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the JD vs YMM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JD closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge; JD's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; YMM starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about JD and YMM?
JD: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. YMM: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 JD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On YMM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JD and YMM 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.