MAS vs MDU Stock Comparison
MAS currently leads MDU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between MAS and MDU?
MAS leads the current stock comparison as Masco Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Masco Corporation vs MDU Resources Group, Inc.
MAS leads
MAS leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MDU on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MAS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Masco Corporation
MDU Resources Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAS over MDU, 62 versus 51 as of Oct 22, 2026. MAS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MAS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MDU. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Masco Corporation and MDU Resources Group, 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 MAS and MDU 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.
- Momentum81 vs 56MAS +25
- Value63 vs 51MAS +12
- Quality47 vs 43MAS +4
- Risk Resilience56 vs 56Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MAS. MAS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
MAS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MAS and MDU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAS (Masco Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MDU (MDU Resources Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
MASMAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MASMAS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MASMAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
MASMAS on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
MDUMDU carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MDUMDU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAS, analyst targets favor MDU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MAS | MDU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.5% | +30.8% | MDU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 1 | 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 | MAS | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.77% | 11.21% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.680 | $0.318 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.240 | $0.540 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #54 | not ranked |
MAS grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.77% a year against MDU's 11.21%. MAS never reduced its regular dividend in the window; MDU did in 1 year.
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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MAS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MAS | 62 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | MASon balance | revenue growth 3.9% vs -38.1%; EPS growth 52.4% vs -74.4%; TTM ROE -4.1% vs 6.9%; gross margin 36.9% vs 42.4%; operating margin 17.7% vs 17% — MAS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MAS | Value 63 vs 51 |
| Technicals | MAS | Price vs 50-day 5.3% vs -1%; vs 200-day 5.9% vs -7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | MDU | Target upside 7.5% vs 30.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MAS and MDU and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 MAS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAS +11
- 62 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- MAS +15
- 61 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- MAS +8
- 51 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- MAS +1
- 47 vs 46
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only MAS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.47%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only MDU
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.79%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MAS 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 -0.13%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.1%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1MDU closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAS's edge.
- 2MDU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
MAS leads on balance| Metric | MAS | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | -38.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 52.4% | -74.4% |
| Gross margin | 36.9% | 42.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.7% | 17% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.1% | 6.9% |
| Debt to equity | -9.57 | 0.88 |
Performance
MAS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MAS | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.1% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.7% | 2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.3% | -9.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | -10.8% |
| Year to date | 17.6% | -2.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 9.7% | 0.5% |
Technicals
MAS has the stronger structure| Metric | MAS | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 81.6 | 66.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.3% | -1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.9% | -7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 14.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MAS | MDU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.15 | 0.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.34 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.54 | -0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -24.7% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -16.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.3% | 20% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MAS or MDU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 62 against MDU's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 MAS or MDU the better buy right now?
MAS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MAS over MDU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAS leads Momentum by 25 points; MAS leads Value by 12 points; MAS leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MAS or MDU?
Analyst price targets imply +7.5% upside for MAS and +30.8% for MDU, so the Street currently favors MDU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAS. 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, MAS or MDU?
MAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, MAS or MDU?
MAS 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, MAS or MDU?
MAS on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, MAS or MDU?
MDU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MDU 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 MAS more profitable than MDU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.9% vs 42.4%; operating margin 17.7% vs 17%; ttm roe -4.1% vs 6.9%. MAS leads on one measure and MDU 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 MAS's lead over MDU getting stronger or weaker?
MAS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MAS vs MDU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MDU closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAS's edge; MDU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MAS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 MAS and MDU?
MAS: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MDU: 1 bullish / 3 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 MAS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MDU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MAS and MDU 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.