PATH vs PAYC Stock Comparison
Compare PATH and PAYC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PATH and PAYC?
PATH leads the current stock comparison as UiPath Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
UiPath Inc. vs Paycom Software, Inc.
PATH leads
PATH leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PATH, and its current signal state is conflicted.
UiPath Inc.
Paycom Software, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PATH over PAYC, 58 versus 57 as of Sep 11, 2026. PATH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. PATH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PATH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PATH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare UiPath Inc. and Paycom Software, 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 PATH and PAYC 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.
- Risk Resilience56 vs 49PATH +7
- Quality77 vs 74Even
- Value58 vs 61Even
- Momentum37 vs 35Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PATH. PATH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
PATH's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PATH and PAYC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PATH (UiPath Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
PAYC (Paycom Software, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
PATHPATH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PAYCPAYC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PATHPATH on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
PATHPATH 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 | PATH | PAYC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.8% | -13% | PATH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.7% | +73.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 11 | 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 PATH. 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 | 58 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | PAYCon balance | revenue growth -13% vs -7.1%; EPS growth -78.9% vs -23.3%; TTM ROE 17.3% vs 40.4%; gross margin 83% vs 80.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 30.3% — PAYC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 58 vs 61 |
| Technicals | PAYC | Price vs 50-day -2.4% vs 16.8%; vs 200-day 7.5% vs 43.9% |
| Risk Resilience | PATH | Risk Resilience 56 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | PATH | Target upside 17.8% vs -13% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PATH and PAYC 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
- 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 PATH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PATH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PATH +1
- 58 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- PAYC +3
- 63 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- PATH +1
- 70 vs 69
- 90 sessions ago
- PATH +2
- 67 vs 65
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when PATH moved ahead of PAYC.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.91%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
PATH 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 -0.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.33%, 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.
- 1PAYC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge.
- 2PAYC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
PAYC leads on balance| Metric | PATH | PAYC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -13% | -7.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -78.9% | -23.3% |
| Gross margin | 83% | 80.1% |
| Operating margin | 6.2% | 30.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.3% | 40.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 1.72 |
Performance
PAYC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PATH | PAYC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.6% | -8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.1% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 29% | 58% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12% | 65.8% |
| Year to date | -15.4% | 35.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.5% | -3.7% |
Technicals
PAYC has the stronger structure| Metric | PATH | PAYC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.6 | 38.1 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 45 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.4% | 16.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.5% | 43.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 87.6% | 38.7% |
Risk
PATH is the more resilient| Metric | PATH | PAYC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.25 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | 0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -51.4% | -49.8% |
| Current drawdown | -28.1% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.9% | 47.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PATH or PAYC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PATH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against PAYC's 57. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 PATH or PAYC the better buy right now?
PATH 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PATH over PAYC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PATH leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PATH or PAYC?
Analyst price targets imply +17.8% upside for PATH and -13% for PAYC, so the Street currently favors PATH. 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, PATH or PAYC?
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, PATH or PAYC?
PAYC 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, PATH or PAYC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, PATH or PAYC?
PATH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PATH on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 PATH more profitable than PAYC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 83% vs 80.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 30.3%; ttm roe 17.3% vs 40.4%. PATH leads on one measure and PAYC 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 PATH's lead over PAYC getting stronger or weaker?
PATH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 2026-09-08, when PATH moved ahead of PAYC.
What would change the PATH vs PAYC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PAYC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to PATH's edge; PAYC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PATH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 PATH and PAYC?
PATH: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PAYC: 3 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 PATH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PAYC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PATH and PAYC 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.