MNDY vs TRMB Stock Comparison
MNDY currently leads TRMB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between MNDY and TRMB?
MNDY leads the current stock comparison as monday.com Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
monday.com Ltd. vs Trimble Inc.
MNDY leads
MNDY leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TRMB on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MNDY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
monday.com Ltd.
Trimble Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNDY over TRMB, 56 versus 49 as of Nov 7, 2026. MNDY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MNDY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TRMB. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNDY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare monday.com Ltd. and Trimble Inc. 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 MNDY and TRMB 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.
- Momentum39 vs 26MNDY +13
- Quality67 vs 56MNDY +11
- Risk Resilience46 vs 40MNDY +6
- Value65 vs 67Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MNDY. MNDY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -24
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MNDY's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MNDY and TRMB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNDY (monday.com Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
TRMB (Trimble 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
MNDYMNDY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TRMBTRMB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MNDYMNDY on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
MNDYMNDY on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
TRMBTRMB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MNDY, analyst targets favor TRMB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MNDY | TRMB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.2% | +34% | TRMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.8% | +26.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 4 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNDY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MNDY | 56 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 3.8% vs 3.4%; EPS growth -86.3% vs -5.8%; TTM ROE 12.5% vs -1.9%; gross margin 88.7% vs 68.4%; operating margin 2.9% vs 17.5% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 67 |
| Technicals | MNDY | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -9.3%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs -10.5% |
| Risk Resilience | MNDY | Risk Resilience 46 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | TRMB | Target upside 23.2% vs 34% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MNDY and TRMB 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.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MNDY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNDY +7
- 56 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- TRMB +1
- 64 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- MNDY +3
- 66 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- MNDY +1
- 62 vs 61
The lead changed hands 13 times in this window, most recently on Nov 4 when MNDY moved ahead of TRMB.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MNDY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.93%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TRMB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.35%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MNDY 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 -6.3%, AIQ -6 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.88%, 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.
- 1TRMB closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge.
- 2TRMB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MNDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
Split| Metric | MNDY | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.8% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -86.3% | -5.8% |
| Gross margin | 88.7% | 68.4% |
| Operating margin | 2.9% | 17.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.5% | -1.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.38 | 0.29 |
Performance
MNDY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MNDY | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8% | -15.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.8% | -7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22% | -11% |
| Year to date | -40.4% | -30.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -54.3% | -32.8% |
Technicals
MNDY has the stronger structure| Metric | MNDY | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.4 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 37.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | -10.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.4% | 47.1% |
Risk
MNDY is the more resilient| Metric | MNDY | TRMB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.52 | 0.79 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.82 | -0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.25 | -1.08 |
| Max drawdown | -69% | -41.5% |
| Current drawdown | -53.6% | -35.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.4% | 36.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MNDY or TRMB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNDY is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 56 against TRMB's 49. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 MNDY or TRMB the better buy right now?
MNDY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MNDY over TRMB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNDY leads Momentum by 13 points; MNDY leads Quality by 11 points; MNDY leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MNDY or TRMB?
Analyst price targets imply +23.2% upside for MNDY and +34% for TRMB, so the Street currently favors TRMB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MNDY. 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, MNDY or TRMB?
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, MNDY or TRMB?
TRMB 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, MNDY or TRMB?
MNDY 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, MNDY or TRMB?
MNDY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNDY on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 MNDY more profitable than TRMB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 88.7% vs 68.4%; operating margin 2.9% vs 17.5%; ttm roe 12.5% vs -1.9%. MNDY leads on two measures and TRMB on one measure, 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 MNDY's lead over TRMB getting stronger or weaker?
MNDY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 13 times in that window, most recently on 2026-11-04, when MNDY moved ahead of TRMB.
What would change the MNDY vs TRMB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TRMB closes the Momentum gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNDY's edge; TRMB's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MNDY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 MNDY and TRMB?
MNDY: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TRMB: 0 bullish / 4 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 MNDY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TRMB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MNDY and TRMB 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.