MHK vs ONON Stock Comparison
MHK currently leads ONON in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while ONON has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MHK and ONON?
MHK leads the current stock comparison as Mohawk Industries, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mohawk Industries, Inc. vs On Holding AG
MHK leads
MHK leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ONON. Wall Street currently favors ONON on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MHK, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Mohawk Industries, Inc.
On Holding AG
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MHK over ONON, 58 versus 51 as of Oct 31, 2026. MHK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ONON holds the stronger quality profile. MHK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ONON. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MHK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MHK lead: Reversed — ONON led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MHK now leads by 7.
Compare Mohawk Industries, Inc. and On Holding AG across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare MHK and ONON 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.
- Quality42 vs 78ONON +36
- Momentum73 vs 42MHK +31
- Value63 vs 33MHK +30
- Risk Resilience54 vs 47MHK +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MHK. MHK’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ONON keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +16
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MHK's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MHK and ONON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MHK (Mohawk Industries, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ONON (On Holding AG): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, 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
MHKMHK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MHKMHK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MHKMHK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
MHKMHK on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
MHKMHK on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
ONONONON on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MHK, analyst targets favor ONON. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MHK | ONON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -10.2% | +30.7% | ONON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.1% | +142.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 20 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MHK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MHK | 58 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | ONONon balance | EPS growth 69.1% vs -3.1%; TTM ROE 5.5% vs 23.2%; gross margin 24.6% vs 64.8%; operating margin 5.4% vs 13.8% — ONON takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MHK | Value 63 vs 33 |
| Technicals | MHK | Price vs 50-day 11% vs 10.3%; vs 200-day 10% vs -13.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MHK | Risk Resilience 54 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | ONON | Target upside -10.2% vs 30.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MHK and ONON 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 7 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MHK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MHK lead: Reversed — ONON led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MHK now leads by 7.
- Today
- MHK +7
- 58 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- ONON +3
- 52 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- ONON +10
- 49 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- MHK +13
- 55 vs 42
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when MHK moved ahead of ONON.
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 MHK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.12%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
Only ONON
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (19.97%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 +7.25%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.99%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1ONON closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MHK's edge.
- 2ONON's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MHK's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ONON leads on balance| Metric | MHK | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.6% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 69.1% | -3.1% |
| Gross margin | 24.6% | 64.8% |
| Operating margin | 5.4% | 13.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.5% | 23.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 0.29 |
Performance
MHK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MHK | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.3% | -6.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.5% | 7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.9% | -13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.2% | -9.6% |
| Year to date | 16.9% | -31.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.6% | -23.4% |
Technicals
MHK has the stronger structure| Metric | MHK | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.1 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 30 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11% | 10.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | -13.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.6% | 36.2% |
Risk
MHK is the more resilient| Metric | MHK | ONON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 1.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.53 | -0.45 |
| Max drawdown | -31.1% | -47.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8.8% | -36.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 41% | 49% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MHK or ONON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MHK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 58 against ONON's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. ONON is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 MHK or ONON the better buy right now?
MHK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 MHK over ONON?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ONON leads Quality by 36 points; MHK leads Momentum by 31 points; MHK leads Value by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MHK or ONON?
Analyst price targets imply -10.2% upside for MHK and +30.7% for ONON, so the Street currently favors ONON. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MHK. 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, MHK or ONON?
MHK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MHK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, MHK or ONON?
MHK 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, MHK or ONON?
MHK on the Momentum factor, by 31 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, MHK or ONON?
MHK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MHK on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 MHK more profitable than ONON?
ONON leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 24.6% vs 64.8%; operating margin 5.4% vs 13.8%; ttm roe 5.5% vs 23.2%.
Is MHK's lead over ONON getting stronger or weaker?
MHK lead: Reversed — ONON led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MHK now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when MHK moved ahead of ONON.
What would change the MHK vs ONON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONON closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MHK's edge; ONON's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MHK's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MHK and ONON?
MHK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ONON: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MHK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ONON it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MHK and ONON 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.