PAYC vs RNG Stock Comparison
PAYC currently leads RNG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 61. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while RNG has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between PAYC and RNG?
PAYC leads the current stock comparison as Paycom Software, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Paycom Software, Inc. vs RingCentral, Inc.
PAYC leads
PAYC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PAYC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Paycom Software, Inc.
RingCentral, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PAYC over RNG, 71 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. PAYC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while RNG holds the stronger value profile. PAYC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PAYC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PAYC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Paycom Software, Inc. and RingCentral, 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 PAYC and RNG 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 Resilience54 vs 29PAYC +25
- Momentum89 vs 71PAYC +18
- Quality74 vs 60PAYC +14
- Value61 vs 70RNG +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PAYC. PAYC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; RNG keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
PAYC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PAYC and RNG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PAYC (Paycom Software, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
RNG (RingCentral, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 50.4% against 33.7%.
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
PAYCPAYC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RNGRNG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RNGRNG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
PAYCPAYC on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
PAYCPAYC on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
PAYCPAYC 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 | PAYC | RNG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -23.3% | -27.5% | PAYC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +74.9% | +75.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 8 | 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 PAYC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PAYC | 71 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | PAYCon balance | revenue growth -7.1% vs 2%; EPS growth -23.3% vs 30.6%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs -20.6%; gross margin 80.1% vs 71.8%; operating margin 30.3% vs 6.9% — PAYC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RNG | Value 61 vs 70 |
| Technicals | RNG | Price vs 50-day 14.4% vs 13.2%; vs 200-day 61.7% vs 73.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PAYC | Risk Resilience 54 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | PAYC | Target upside -23.3% vs -27.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PAYC and RNG 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.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 PAYC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PAYC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PAYC +10
- 71 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- PAYC +10
- 70 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- PAYC +3
- 64 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- PAYC +8
- 70 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 28 when PAYC moved ahead of RNG.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only PAYC
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only RNG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.55%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, Uptrend Structure Active.
PAYC 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.5%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.98%, 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.
- 1RNG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAYC's edge.
- 2RNG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PAYC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 | PAYC | RNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.1% | 2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -23.3% | 30.6% |
| Gross margin | 80.1% | 71.8% |
| Operating margin | 30.3% | 6.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | -20.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.72 | -2.2 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PAYC | RNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 10.8% | 3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16.8% | 2.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 82% | 116.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 101.1% | 97.4% |
| Year to date | 57.3% | 175.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.5% | 200.6% |
Technicals
RNG has the stronger structure| Metric | PAYC | RNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.4 | 61.5 |
| ADX (14) | 36.7 | 29.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.4% | 13.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 61.7% | 73.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.7% | 50.4% |
Risk
PAYC is the more resilient| Metric | PAYC | RNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.09 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 1.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.23 | 3.68 |
| Max drawdown | -45.1% | -29.4% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.9% | 70.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PAYC or RNG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PAYC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against RNG's 61. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. RNG 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 PAYC or RNG the better buy right now?
PAYC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 PAYC over RNG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PAYC leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; PAYC leads Momentum by 18 points; PAYC leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PAYC or RNG?
Analyst price targets imply -23.3% upside for PAYC and -27.5% for RNG, so the Street currently favors PAYC. 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, PAYC or RNG?
RNG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RNG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, PAYC or RNG?
RNG 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, PAYC or RNG?
PAYC on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, PAYC or RNG?
PAYC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PAYC on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 PAYC more profitable than RNG?
PAYC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80.1% vs 71.8%; operating margin 30.3% vs 6.9%; ttm roe 40.4% vs -20.6%.
Is PAYC's lead over RNG getting stronger or weaker?
PAYC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-28, when PAYC moved ahead of RNG.
What would change the PAYC vs RNG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RNG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAYC's edge; RNG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PAYC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 PAYC and RNG?
PAYC: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. RNG: 4 bullish / 1 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 PAYC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RNG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PAYC and RNG 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.