NDAQ vs SEIC Stock Comparison
SEIC currently leads NDAQ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while NDAQ has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between NDAQ and SEIC?
SEIC leads the current stock comparison as SEI Investments Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nasdaq, Inc. vs SEI Investments Company
SEIC leads
SEIC leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SEIC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Nasdaq, Inc.
SEI Investments Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SEIC over NDAQ, 60 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. SEIC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while NDAQ holds the stronger momentum profile. SEIC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SEIC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SEIC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Nasdaq, Inc. and SEI Investments Company 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 SEIC 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.
- Momentum80 vs 44NDAQ +36
- Quality64 vs 88SEIC +24
- Risk Resilience60 vs 82SEIC +22
- Value25 vs 33SEIC +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SEIC. SEIC’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; NDAQ keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
SEIC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NDAQ and SEIC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SEIC (SEI Investments Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
NDAQ (Nasdaq, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 30% against 21.6%.
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
SEICSEIC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NDAQNDAQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SEICSEIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
NDAQNDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
SEICSEIC on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
SEICSEIC 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 | NDAQ | SEIC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.5% | +20.3% | SEIC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.6% | +12.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | NDAQ | SEIC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.18% | 7.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.647 | $0.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.050 | $1.010 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #96 | #192 |
NDAQ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.18% a year against SEIC's 7.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SEIC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SEIC | 56 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | SEICon balance | revenue growth -5.5% vs 2.6%; EPS growth 7.8% vs -12.9%; TTM ROE 17.3% vs 28.7%; gross margin 63.2% vs 76.1%; operating margin 31.7% vs 29.5% — SEIC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SEIC | Value 25 vs 33 |
| Technicals | NDAQ | Price vs 50-day 11% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day 16.6% vs 11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SEIC | Risk Resilience 60 vs 82 |
| Analyst expectations | SEIC | Target upside 6.5% vs 20.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NDAQ and SEIC 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SEIC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30SEIC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SEIC +4
- 56 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- SEIC +4
- 56 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- SEIC +14
- 46 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- SEIC +15
- 55 vs 70
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
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SEIC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active.
SEIC 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.25%, 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.
- 1NDAQ closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to SEIC's edge.
- 2NDAQ's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3SEIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate SEIC's advantage entirely.
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
SEIC leads on balance| Metric | NDAQ | SEIC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.5% | 2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.8% | -12.9% |
| Gross margin | 63.2% | 76.1% |
| Operating margin | 31.7% | 29.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.3% | 28.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 0.02 |
Performance
NDAQ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NDAQ | SEIC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.6% | 1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.8% | -0.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 16.3% | 14.6% |
| Year to date | 7.8% | 26.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.9% | 28.3% |
Technicals
NDAQ has the stronger structure| Metric | NDAQ | SEIC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.4 | 45.2 |
| ADX (14) | 29.9 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.6% | 11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30% | 21.6% |
Risk
SEIC is the more resilient| Metric | NDAQ | SEIC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.77 | 1.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | 1.7 |
| Max drawdown | -23.9% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 23.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NDAQ or SEIC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SEIC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against NDAQ's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. NDAQ is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 SEIC the better buy right now?
SEIC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SEIC over NDAQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NDAQ leads Momentum by 36 points; SEIC leads Quality by 24 points; SEIC leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NDAQ or SEIC?
Analyst price targets imply +6.5% upside for NDAQ and +20.3% for SEIC, so the Street currently favors SEIC. 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 SEIC?
SEIC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SEIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 SEIC?
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 SEIC?
NDAQ on the Momentum factor, by 36 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 SEIC?
SEIC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SEIC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 SEIC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 76.1%; operating margin 31.7% vs 29.5%; ttm roe 17.3% vs 28.7%. NDAQ leads on one measure and SEIC 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 SEIC's lead over NDAQ getting stronger or weaker?
SEIC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 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 SEIC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NDAQ closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to SEIC's edge; NDAQ's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; SEIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate SEIC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NDAQ and SEIC?
NDAQ: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. SEIC: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 SEIC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NDAQ and SEIC 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.