ROST vs TPR Stock Comparison
Compare ROST and TPR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ROST and TPR?
ROST leads the current stock comparison as Ross Stores, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ross Stores, Inc. vs Tapestry, Inc.
ROST leads
ROST leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TPR on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ROST, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ross Stores, Inc.
Tapestry, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ROST over TPR, 50 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. ROST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while TPR holds the stronger value profile. ROST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TPR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ROST today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ROST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ross Stores, Inc. and Tapestry, 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 ROST and TPR 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.
- Quality73 vs 33ROST +40
- Risk Resilience64 vs 37ROST +27
- Momentum41 vs 22ROST +19
- Value28 vs 39TPR +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ROST. ROST’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; TPR 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 +6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ROST's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ROST and TPR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ROST (Ross Stores, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
TPR (Tapestry, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 64.8% against 27.6%.
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
ROSTROST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ROSTROST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TPRTPR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
ROSTROST on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
ROSTROST on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
TPRTPR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ROST, analyst targets favor TPR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ROST | TPR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.8% | +49.2% | TPR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.3% | +52% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 11 | 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 ROST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ROST | 50 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | TPRon balance | revenue growth 4.2% vs -2.3%; EPS growth 31.4% vs 1.2%; TTM ROE 42.3% vs 262.8%; gross margin 29.9% vs 77.8%; operating margin 13.7% vs 23.9% — TPR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TPR | Value 28 vs 39 |
| Technicals | ROST | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -14.7%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs -16.2% |
| Risk Resilience | ROST | Risk Resilience 64 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | TPR | Target upside 14.8% vs 49.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ROST and TPR 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ROST.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ROST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ROST +17
- 50 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- ROST +16
- 50 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- ROST +7
- 47 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- TPR +7
- 44 vs 51
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when TPR moved ahead of ROST.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.21%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.29%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ROST 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 up over the latest session (price +2.33%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.26%, 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.
- 1TPR closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ROST's edge.
- 2TPR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ROST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
TPR leads on balance| Metric | ROST | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -2.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 31.4% | 1.2% |
| Gross margin | 29.9% | 77.8% |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 23.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 42.3% | 262.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.7 | 5.71 |
Performance
ROST leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ROST | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | -24.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | -16.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.5% | -20.3% |
| Year to date | 25.2% | -4.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 49% | 10.5% |
Technicals
ROST has the stronger structure| Metric | ROST | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45 | 26.5 |
| ADX (14) | 21.2 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -14.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | -16.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.6% | 64.8% |
Risk
ROST is the more resilient| Metric | ROST | TPR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.62 | 1.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.56 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.51 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -13% | -31% |
| Current drawdown | -11.7% | -29.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 41.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ROST or TPR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ROST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against TPR's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. TPR 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 ROST or TPR the better buy right now?
ROST 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 ROST over TPR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ROST leads Quality by 40 points; ROST leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; ROST leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ROST or TPR?
Analyst price targets imply +14.8% upside for ROST and +49.2% for TPR, so the Street currently favors TPR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ROST. 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, ROST or TPR?
TPR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TPR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, ROST or TPR?
ROST 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, ROST or TPR?
ROST on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, ROST or TPR?
ROST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ROST on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 ROST more profitable than TPR?
TPR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 29.9% vs 77.8%; operating margin 13.7% vs 23.9%; ttm roe 42.3% vs 262.8%.
Is ROST's lead over TPR getting stronger or weaker?
ROST lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 17 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when TPR moved ahead of ROST.
What would change the ROST vs TPR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPR closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to ROST's edge; TPR's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ROST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 ROST and TPR?
ROST: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. TPR: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 ROST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TPR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ROST and TPR 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.