PAYX vs XLK Stock Comparison
Paychex, Inc. vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
PAYX leads
PAYX leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support PAYX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Paychex, Inc.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PAYX over XLK, 63 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. PAYX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. PAYX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor PAYX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PAYX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Paychex, Inc. and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare PAYX and XLK 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.
- Value30%45 vs 36PAYX +9
- Momentum25%66 vs 57PAYX +9
- Quality30%81 vs 74PAYX +7
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 61Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor PAYX. PAYX’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
PAYX's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PAYX and XLK both carry a full feed there.
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
PAYXPAYX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
PAYXPAYX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
PAYXPAYX on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | PAYX | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -12.1% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +15.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor PAYX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PAYX | 63 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | PAYX | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | PAYX | Price vs 50-day 4.6% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 17% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PAYX and XLK 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 7 points.
- 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 PAYX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4PAYX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PAYX +7
- 63 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PAYX +10
- 66 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- PAYX +6
- 67 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- PAYX +10
- 61 vs 51
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on May 18 when PAYX moved ahead of XLK.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
PAYX 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.69%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.7%, 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAYX's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PAYX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | PAYX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -11.2% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.4% | — |
| Gross margin | 74.3% | — |
| Operating margin | 38.6% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 45.1% | — |
| Debt to equity | 1.24 | — |
Performance
XLK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PAYX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.2% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.1% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.7% | 36.4% |
| Year to date | 8.5% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.3% | 43.3% |
Technicals
PAYX has the stronger structure| Metric | PAYX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.4 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.9 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.6% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.6% | 20.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PAYX | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.01 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.67 | 2.06 |
| Max drawdown | -37.7% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -11.4% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PAYX or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PAYX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 63 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 PAYX or XLK the better buy right now?
PAYX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 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 PAYX over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PAYX leads Value by 9 points; PAYX leads Momentum by 9 points; PAYX leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PAYX or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply -12.1% upside for PAYX and not covered for XLK. 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, PAYX or XLK?
PAYX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PAYX 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, PAYX or XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, PAYX or XLK?
PAYX on the Momentum factor, by 9 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, PAYX or XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PAYX more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is PAYX's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
PAYX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-18, when PAYX moved ahead of XLK.
What would change the PAYX vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PAYX's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PAYX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about PAYX and XLK?
PAYX: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 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 PAYX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.