SNA vs WSC Stock Comparison
Compare SNA and WSC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SNA and WSC?
SNA leads the current stock comparison as Snap-on Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Snap-on Incorporated vs WillScot Holdings Corporation
SNA leads
SNA leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WSC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SNA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Snap-on Incorporated
WillScot Holdings Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SNA over WSC, 53 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. SNA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WSC holds the stronger value profile. SNA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WSC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SNA today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Snap-on Incorporated and WillScot Holdings 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 SNA and WSC 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.
- Risk Resilience80 vs 32SNA +48
- Quality67 vs 22SNA +45
- Value54 vs 66WSC +12
- Momentum20 vs 25WSC +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SNA. SNA’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WSC 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.
SNA's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SNA and WSC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SNA (Snap-on Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WSC (WillScot Holdings Corporation): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.8% against 10.8%.
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
SNASNA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WSCWSC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WSCWSC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
WSCWSC on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
SNASNA on Risk Resilience, by 48 points.
Analyst upside
WSCWSC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SNA, analyst targets favor WSC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SNA | WSC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.7% | +43.6% | WSC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.6% | +18.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 4 | 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 SNA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SNA | 53 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | SNAon balance | revenue growth 2.3% vs 11.6%; EPS growth 5.9% vs 62.5%; TTM ROE 17.4% vs -7.5%; gross margin 51.2% vs 48.4%; operating margin 23.8% vs 20.2% — SNA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WSC | Value 54 vs 66 |
| Technicals | SNA | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -22%; vs 200-day 0.2% vs -16.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SNA | Risk Resilience 80 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | WSC | Target upside 13.7% vs 43.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SNA and WSC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SNA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SNA +16
- 53 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- SNA +18
- 55 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- SNA +13
- 53 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- SNA +27
- 66 vs 39
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.40%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.95%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
SNA 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.16%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.13%, 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.
- 1WSC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SNA's edge.
- 2WSC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SNA'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
SNA leads on balance| Metric | SNA | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.3% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.9% | 62.5% |
| Gross margin | 51.2% | 48.4% |
| Operating margin | 23.8% | 20.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.4% | -7.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.21 | 4.17 |
Performance
SNA leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SNA | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -15.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | -29.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | -3.3% |
| Year to date | 8.8% | -0.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.7% | -19.5% |
Technicals
SNA has the stronger structure| Metric | SNA | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.2 | 20.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.1 | 33.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -22% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.2% | -16.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 10.8% | 40.8% |
Risk
SNA is the more resilient| Metric | SNA | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.13 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -10.6% | -36.4% |
| Current drawdown | -10.6% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.8% | 52% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SNA or WSC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SNA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against WSC's 37. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. WSC 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 SNA or WSC the better buy right now?
SNA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SNA over WSC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SNA leads Risk Resilience by 48 points; SNA leads Quality by 45 points; WSC leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SNA or WSC?
Analyst price targets imply +13.7% upside for SNA and +43.6% for WSC, so the Street currently favors WSC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SNA. 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, SNA or WSC?
WSC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WSC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, SNA or WSC?
WSC 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, SNA or WSC?
WSC on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, SNA or WSC?
SNA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SNA on Risk Resilience, by 48 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 SNA more profitable than WSC?
SNA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 51.2% vs 48.4%; operating margin 23.8% vs 20.2%; ttm roe 17.4% vs -7.5%.
Is SNA's lead over WSC getting stronger or weaker?
SNA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 16 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 SNA vs WSC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WSC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SNA's edge; WSC's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SNA'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 SNA and WSC?
SNA: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. WSC: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 SNA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WSC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SNA and WSC 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.