NOC vs RTX Stock Comparison
Compare NOC and RTX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NOC and RTX?
NOC leads the current stock comparison as Northrop Grumman Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Northrop Grumman Corporation vs RTX Corporation
NOC leads
NOC leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support NOC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Northrop Grumman Corporation
RTX Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOC over RTX, 44 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. NOC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while RTX holds the stronger momentum profile. NOC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Northrop Grumman Corporation and RTX Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare NOC and RTX 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.
- Value64 vs 47NOC +17
- Momentum10 vs 25RTX +15
- Quality52 vs 42NOC +10
- Risk Resilience43 vs 53RTX +10
2 of 6 evidence groups favor NOC. NOC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; RTX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
NOC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOC and RTX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOC (Northrop Grumman Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
RTX (RTX Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
NOCNOC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NOCNOC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NOCNOC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
RTXRTX on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
RTXRTX on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
NOCNOC 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 | NOC | RTX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.6% | +19.8% | NOC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.5% | +14.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 10.1% vs 11.9%; EPS growth 25% vs 3.3%; TTM ROE 26.6% vs 11.8%; gross margin 20.1% vs 20.3%; operating margin 10.2% vs 11.2% |
| Valuation | NOC | Value 64 vs 47 |
| Technicals | RTX | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -13.8% vs 2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | RTX | Risk Resilience 43 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | NOC | Target upside 22.6% vs 19.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NOC and RTX 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 NOC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NOC +3
- 44 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- NOC +3
- 43 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- NOC +10
- 61 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- NOC +4
- 59 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when NOC moved ahead of RTX.
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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.55%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NOC 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%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.22%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1RTX closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOC's edge.
- 2RTX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3NOC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate NOC'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
Split| Metric | NOC | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.1% | 11.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | 3.3% |
| Gross margin | 20.1% | 20.3% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 11.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.6% | 11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.91 | 0.59 |
Performance
RTX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NOC | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -11.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.3% | 11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -29.2% | -4.4% |
| Year to date | -9% | 8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.8% | 28.5% |
Technicals
RTX has the stronger structure| Metric | NOC | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.1 | 20.1 |
| ADX (14) | 15.7 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13.8% | 2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 20.6% |
Risk
RTX is the more resilient| Metric | NOC | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.1 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.36 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.54 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -35.4% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -32.4% | -12.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 26.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOC or RTX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against RTX's 41. The edge comes from value and quality. RTX 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 NOC or RTX the better buy right now?
NOC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NOC over RTX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NOC leads Value by 17 points; RTX leads Momentum by 15 points; NOC leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NOC or RTX?
Analyst price targets imply +22.6% upside for NOC and +19.8% for RTX, so the Street currently favors NOC. 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, NOC or RTX?
NOC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NOC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, NOC or RTX?
NOC 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, NOC or RTX?
RTX on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, NOC or RTX?
RTX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RTX on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 NOC more profitable than RTX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.1% vs 20.3%; operating margin 10.2% vs 11.2%; ttm roe 26.6% vs 11.8%. Each name leads 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 NOC's lead over RTX getting stronger or weaker?
NOC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when NOC moved ahead of RTX.
What would change the NOC vs RTX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RTX closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOC's edge; RTX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; NOC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate NOC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NOC and RTX?
NOC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. RTX: 2 bullish / 2 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 NOC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RTX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NOC and RTX 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.