QXO vs VRT Stock Comparison
Compare QXO and VRT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between QXO and VRT?
VRT leads the current stock comparison as Vertiv Holdings Co, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
QXO, Inc. vs Vertiv Holdings Co
VRT leads
VRT leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors QXO on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support VRT, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
QXO, Inc.
Vertiv Holdings Co
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VRT over QXO, 44 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. VRT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while QXO holds the stronger value profile. VRT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors QXO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VRT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare QXO, Inc. and Vertiv Holdings Co 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 QXO and VRT 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.
- Quality28 vs 77VRT +49
- Value41 vs 25QXO +16
- Risk Resilience36 vs 27QXO +9
- Momentum31 vs 38VRT +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor VRT. VRT’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; QXO keeps a meaningful value 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 +2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -19
No new signals fired.
VRT's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QXO and VRT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VRT (Vertiv Holdings Co): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
QXO (QXO, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
VRTVRT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QXOQXO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QXOQXO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
VRTVRT on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
QXOQXO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
QXOQXO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VRT, analyst targets favor QXO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | QXO | VRT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +122% | +44.6% | QXO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.2% | +48.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 16 | 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 VRT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VRT | 34 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | VRTon balance | revenue growth 87.6% vs 23.6%; EPS growth 79.5% vs 26.5%; TTM ROE -5.1% vs 42.1%; gross margin 19.2% vs 37.5%; operating margin -2.3% vs 19.1% — VRT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QXO | Value 41 vs 25 |
| Technicals | VRT | Price vs 50-day -13.6% vs -8.1%; vs 200-day -33.3% vs -4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QXO | Risk Resilience 36 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | QXO | Target upside 122% vs 44.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QXO and VRT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 VRT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VRT +10
- 34 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- VRT +12
- 35 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- VRT +13
- 38 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- VRT +11
- 35 vs 46
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (33.71%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.07%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.25%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
QXO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up over the latest session (price +0.16%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.6%, AIQ -5 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.
- 1QXO closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRT's edge.
- 2QXO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VRT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate VRT'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
VRT leads on balance| Metric | QXO | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 87.6% | 23.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 79.5% | 26.5% |
| Gross margin | 19.2% | 37.5% |
| Operating margin | -2.3% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -5.1% | 42.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.68 |
Performance
VRT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QXO | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7% | -3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.2% | -14% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.4% | -11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -41.8% | -0.2% |
| Year to date | -31.5% | 53.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -43.1% | 103.7% |
Technicals
VRT has the stronger structure| Metric | QXO | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.7 | 43 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.6% | -8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -33.3% | -4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.8% | 61.6% |
Risk
QXO is the more resilient| Metric | QXO | VRT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.59 | 2.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | 1.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.27 | 1.96 |
| Max drawdown | -54.6% | -40.7% |
| Current drawdown | -54.6% | -34% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.1% | 66.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QXO or VRT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VRT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against QXO's 34. The edge comes from quality and momentum. QXO 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 QXO or VRT the better buy right now?
VRT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VRT over QXO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VRT leads Quality by 49 points; QXO leads Value by 16 points; QXO leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QXO or VRT?
Analyst price targets imply +122% upside for QXO and +44.6% for VRT, so the Street currently favors QXO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VRT. 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, QXO or VRT?
QXO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QXO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, QXO or VRT?
QXO 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, QXO or VRT?
VRT on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, QXO or VRT?
QXO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QXO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 QXO more profitable than VRT?
VRT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 19.2% vs 37.5%; operating margin -2.3% vs 19.1%; ttm roe -5.1% vs 42.1%.
Is VRT's lead over QXO getting stronger or weaker?
VRT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 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 QXO vs VRT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QXO closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to VRT's edge; QXO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VRT's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate VRT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about QXO and VRT?
QXO: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. VRT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 QXO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VRT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QXO and VRT 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.