PWR vs URI Stock Comparison
Compare PWR and URI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PWR and URI?
URI leads the current stock comparison as United Rentals, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Quanta Services, Inc. vs United Rentals, Inc.
URI leads
URI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PWR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support URI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Quanta Services, Inc.
United Rentals, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors URI over PWR, 41 versus 37 as of Sep 6, 2026. URI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while PWR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. URI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PWR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor URI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. URI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Quanta Services, Inc. and United Rentals, 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 PWR and URI 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%37 vs 54URI +17
- Risk Resilience15%49 vs 36PWR +13
- Quality30%41 vs 51URI +10
- Momentum25%24 vs 15PWR +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor URI. URI’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; PWR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
URI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PWR and URI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
URI (United Rentals, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
PWR (Quanta Services, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 38.1% against 30.5%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
URIURI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PWRPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
URIURI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
PWRPWR on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
PWRPWR on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
PWRPWR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors URI, analyst targets favor PWR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PWR | URI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.5% | +17.5% | PWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.3% | +59.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor URI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | URI | 37 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | URIon balance | revenue growth 21.4% vs 10.7%; EPS growth 104.8% vs 41.8%; TTM ROE 14.9% vs 29.2%; gross margin 14.4% vs 37.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 24.8% — URI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | URI | Value 37 vs 54 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -4.3% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 8.9% |
| Risk Resilience | PWR | Risk Resilience 49 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | PWR | Target upside 23.5% vs 17.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PWR and URI 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 URI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5URI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- URI +4
- 37 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- URI +4
- 35 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- URI +12
- 38 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when URI moved ahead of PWR.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.94%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.90%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
URI 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 +0.7%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.61%, 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.
- 1PWR closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to URI's edge.
- 2PWR's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3URI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
URI leads on balance| Metric | PWR | URI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 21.4% | 10.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 104.8% | 41.8% |
| Gross margin | 14.4% | 37.1% |
| Operating margin | 6.2% | 24.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.9% | 29.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 1.67 |
Performance
PWR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | PWR | URI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.6% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.1% | -13.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.2% | -5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.6% | 24.7% |
| Year to date | 47.9% | 24.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 66.8% | 6.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | PWR | URI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.6 | 18.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 25.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.3% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 8.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.1% | 30.5% |
Risk
PWR is the more resilient| Metric | PWR | URI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.66 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.28 | 0.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.17 | 0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -28.5% | -30.4% |
| Current drawdown | -20.5% | -13.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 44.2% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PWR or URI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, URI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 41 against PWR's 37. The edge comes from value and quality. PWR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 PWR or URI the better buy right now?
URI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor URI over PWR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. URI leads Value by 17 points; PWR leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; URI leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PWR or URI?
Analyst price targets imply +23.5% upside for PWR and +17.5% for URI, so the Street currently favors PWR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors URI. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, PWR or URI?
URI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. URI 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, PWR or URI?
PWR 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, PWR or URI?
PWR 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, PWR or URI?
PWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PWR on Risk Resilience, by 13 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PWR more profitable than URI?
URI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 14.4% vs 37.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 24.8%; ttm roe 14.9% vs 29.2%.
Is URI's lead over PWR getting stronger or weaker?
URI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when URI moved ahead of PWR.
What would change the PWR vs URI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PWR closes the Value gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to URI's edge; PWR's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; URI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 PWR and URI?
PWR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. URI: 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 PWR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On URI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PWR and URI with others
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.