NVT vs WLDN Stock Comparison
Compare NVT and WLDN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NVT and WLDN?
WLDN leads the current stock comparison as Willdan Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
nVent Electric plc vs Willdan Group, Inc.
WLDN leads
WLDN leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support WLDN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
nVent Electric plc
Willdan Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WLDN over NVT, 58 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. WLDN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while NVT holds the stronger momentum profile. WLDN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WLDN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. WLDN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare nVent Electric plc and Willdan Group, Inc. 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 NVT and WLDN 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.
- Value37 vs 66WLDN +29
- Risk Resilience46 vs 57WLDN +11
- Quality56 vs 64WLDN +8
- Momentum51 vs 43NVT +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor WLDN. WLDN’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; NVT 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 -14
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No new signals fired.
WLDN's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVT and WLDN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WLDN (Willdan Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
NVT (nVent Electric plc): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.8% against 30.8%.
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
WLDNWLDN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WLDNWLDN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WLDNWLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
NVTNVT on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
WLDNWLDN on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
WLDNWLDN 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 | NVT | WLDN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.5% | +33.8% | WLDN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WLDN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WLDN | 48 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | WLDNon balance | revenue growth 18.5% vs 48.9%; EPS growth 51.1% vs 179.3%; TTM ROE 15.8% vs 20.9%; gross margin 37% vs 37.8%; operating margin 17.2% vs 7.1% — WLDN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WLDN | Value 37 vs 66 |
| Technicals | NVT | Price vs 50-day 3.5% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 13.9% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | WLDN | Risk Resilience 46 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | WLDN | Target upside 23.5% vs 33.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NVT and WLDN 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 10 points.
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 WLDN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10WLDN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WLDN +10
- 48 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- WLDN +22
- 42 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- WLDN +19
- 47 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- WLDN +11
- 41 vs 52
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.48%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
WLDN 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.65%, AIQ -3 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.33%, 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.
- 1NVT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge.
- 2NVT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3WLDN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate WLDN'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
WLDN leads on balance| Metric | NVT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.5% | 48.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 51.1% | 179.3% |
| Gross margin | 37% | 37.8% |
| Operating margin | 17.2% | 7.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.8% | 20.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.41 | 0.25 |
Performance
NVT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NVT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.7% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.3% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | -15.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 39.7% | -2.4% |
| Year to date | 52.2% | -21% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 67.6% | -16.1% |
Technicals
NVT has the stronger structure| Metric | NVT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51 | 38.6 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.5% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.9% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.8% | 30.8% |
Risk
WLDN is the more resilient| Metric | NVT | WLDN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.03 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.31 | 0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.93 | 0.01 |
| Max drawdown | -27.5% | -50.4% |
| Current drawdown | -15.8% | -39.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.5% | 61.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NVT or WLDN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WLDN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against NVT's 48. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. NVT 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 NVT or WLDN the better buy right now?
WLDN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WLDN over NVT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WLDN leads Value by 29 points; WLDN leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; WLDN leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NVT or WLDN?
Analyst price targets imply +23.5% upside for NVT and +33.8% for WLDN, so the Street currently favors WLDN. 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, NVT or WLDN?
WLDN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, NVT or WLDN?
WLDN 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, NVT or WLDN?
NVT on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, NVT or WLDN?
WLDN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WLDN on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 NVT more profitable than WLDN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 37% vs 37.8%; operating margin 17.2% vs 7.1%; ttm roe 15.8% vs 20.9%. NVT leads on one measure and WLDN 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 WLDN's lead over NVT getting stronger or weaker?
WLDN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NVT vs WLDN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVT closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to WLDN's edge; NVT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; WLDN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate WLDN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NVT and WLDN?
NVT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WLDN: 1 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 NVT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WLDN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NVT and WLDN 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.