RCAT vs RTX Stock Comparison
Compare RCAT and RTX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RCAT and RTX?
RTX leads the current stock comparison as RTX Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Red Cat Holdings, Inc. vs RTX Corporation
RTX leads
RTX leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors RCAT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RTX, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Red Cat Holdings, Inc.
RTX Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RTX over RCAT, 41 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. RTX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. RTX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RCAT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RTX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RTX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Red Cat Holdings, Inc. and RTX Corporation 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 RCAT and RTX 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.
- Value34 vs 47RTX +13
- Quality33 vs 42RTX +9
- Momentum27 vs 25Even
- Risk Resilience52 vs 53Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RTX. RTX’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
RTX's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RCAT and RTX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RTX (RTX Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
RCAT (Red Cat Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 68.7% against 20.6%.
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
RTXRTX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RTXRTX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RTXRTX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
RTXRTX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
RCATRCAT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RTX, analyst targets favor RCAT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RCAT | RTX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +111.1% | +19.8% | RCAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +95.2% | +14.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 10 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RTX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RTX | 35 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | RTXon balance | revenue growth 30.5% vs 11.9%; EPS growth -18.2% vs 3.3%; TTM ROE -35% vs 11.8%; gross margin 8.6% vs 20.3%; operating margin -161.1% vs 11.2% — RTX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RTX | Value 34 vs 47 |
| Technicals | RTX | Price vs 50-day -10% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day -26.6% vs 2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | RCAT | Target upside 111.1% vs 19.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RCAT and RTX 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 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 RTX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RTX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RTX +6
- 35 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- RTX +6
- 34 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- RTX +5
- 46 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- RTX +21
- 34 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jun 9 when RTX moved ahead of RCAT.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.41%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
RTX 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 -1.49%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.22%, 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.
- 1RCAT closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to RTX's edge.
- 2RCAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RTX'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
RTX leads on balance| Metric | RCAT | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.5% | 11.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -18.2% | 3.3% |
| Gross margin | 8.6% | 20.3% |
| Operating margin | -161.1% | 11.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -35% | 11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.59 |
Performance
RTX leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RCAT | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -21.7% | -11.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -25.8% | 11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -50% | -4.4% |
| Year to date | 1.9% | 8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.9% | 28.5% |
Technicals
RTX has the stronger structure| Metric | RCAT | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.3 | 20.1 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 28 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.6% | 2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 68.7% | 20.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | RCAT | RTX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.82 | 0.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.93 | 1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -61% | -19.3% |
| Current drawdown | -53.5% | -12.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 114.7% | 26.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.9% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RCAT or RTX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RTX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 41 against RCAT's 35. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 RCAT or RTX the better buy right now?
RTX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 RTX over RCAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RTX leads Value by 13 points; RTX leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RCAT or RTX?
Analyst price targets imply +111.1% upside for RCAT and +19.8% for RTX, so the Street currently favors RCAT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RTX. 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, RCAT or RTX?
RTX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RTX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, RCAT or RTX?
RTX 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, RCAT or RTX?
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, RCAT or RTX?
RTX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RTX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is RCAT more profitable than RTX?
RTX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 8.6% vs 20.3%; operating margin -161.1% vs 11.2%; ttm roe -35% vs 11.8%.
Is RTX's lead over RCAT getting stronger or weaker?
RTX lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2026-06-09, when RTX moved ahead of RCAT.
What would change the RCAT vs RTX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RCAT closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to RTX's edge; RCAT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RTX'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 RCAT and RTX?
RCAT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. RTX: 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 RCAT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RTX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RCAT and RTX 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.