NDAQ vs OWL Stock Comparison
NDAQ currently leads OWL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while OWL has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between NDAQ and OWL?
NDAQ leads the current stock comparison as Nasdaq, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nasdaq, Inc. vs Blue Owl Capital Inc.
NDAQ leads
NDAQ leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support NDAQ, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Nasdaq, Inc.
Blue Owl Capital Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NDAQ over OWL, 56 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. NDAQ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while OWL holds the stronger value profile. NDAQ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NDAQ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NDAQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nasdaq, Inc. and Blue Owl Capital 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 NDAQ and OWL 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.
- Quality64 vs 31NDAQ +33
- Risk Resilience60 vs 37NDAQ +23
- Value25 vs 39OWL +14
- Momentum80 vs 75NDAQ +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor NDAQ. NDAQ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; OWL keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, 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 +27
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
NDAQ's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NDAQ and OWL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NDAQ (Nasdaq, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
OWL (Blue Owl Capital Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 47.6% against 30%.
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
NDAQNDAQ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NDAQNDAQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OWLOWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
NDAQNDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
NDAQNDAQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | NDAQ | OWL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.5% | +6.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +72.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 7 | 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 NDAQ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NDAQ | 56 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | NDAQ | EPS growth 7.8% vs -27.2%; TTM ROE 17.3% vs 3.8%; gross margin 63.2% vs 61.1%; operating margin 31.7% vs 22.6% |
| Valuation | OWL | Value 25 vs 39 |
| Technicals | NDAQ | Price vs 50-day 11% vs 2.5%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs 0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | NDAQ | Risk Resilience 60 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 6.5% vs 6.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NDAQ and OWL 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 11 points.
- 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 NDAQ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30NDAQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NDAQ +11
- 56 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- NDAQ +17
- 56 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- NDAQ +10
- 46 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- NDAQ +11
- 55 vs 44
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only NDAQ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.64%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only OWL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.90%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NDAQ 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 +0.6%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.77%, AIQ +6 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.
- 1OWL closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to NDAQ's edge.
- 2OWL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NDAQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
NDAQ leads on balance| Metric | NDAQ | OWL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.5% | -0.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.8% | -27.2% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 61.1% |
| Operating margin | 31.7% | 22.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.3% | 3.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 2.18 |
Performance
NDAQ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NDAQ | OWL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 10.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.6% | 13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.8% | -7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.3% | 3.5% |
| Year to date | 7.8% | -30.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | -37.6% |
Technicals
NDAQ has the stronger structure| Metric | NDAQ | OWL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.4 | 64.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29.9 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11% | 2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | 0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 47.6% |
Risk
NDAQ is the more resilient| Metric | NDAQ | OWL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | -0.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | -1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -23.9% | -50.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -38% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 46.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NDAQ or OWL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NDAQ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against OWL's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. OWL 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 NDAQ or OWL the better buy right now?
NDAQ 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 leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NDAQ over OWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NDAQ leads Quality by 33 points; NDAQ leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; OWL leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NDAQ or OWL?
Analyst price targets imply +6.5% upside for NDAQ and +6.6% for OWL. 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, NDAQ or OWL?
OWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, NDAQ or OWL?
NDAQ 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, NDAQ or OWL?
NDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, NDAQ or OWL?
NDAQ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NDAQ on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 NDAQ more profitable than OWL?
NDAQ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.2% vs 61.1%; operating margin 31.7% vs 22.6%; ttm roe 17.3% vs 3.8%.
Is NDAQ's lead over OWL getting stronger or weaker?
NDAQ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NDAQ vs OWL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OWL closes the Quality gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to NDAQ's edge; OWL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NDAQ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 NDAQ and OWL?
NDAQ: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. OWL: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 NDAQ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On OWL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NDAQ and OWL 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.