SON vs TNET Stock Comparison
Compare SON and TNET across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SON and TNET?
TNET leads the current stock comparison as TriNet Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sonoco Products Company vs TriNet Group, Inc.
TNET leads
TNET leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SON on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TNET, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sonoco Products Company
TriNet Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TNET over SON, 57 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. TNET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. TNET also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SON. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TNET today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TNET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions. TNET leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Sonoco Products Company and TriNet Group, 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 SON and TNET 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.
- Momentum23 vs 52TNET +29
- Quality38 vs 49TNET +11
- Risk Resilience41 vs 50TNET +9
- Value67 vs 72TNET +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TNET. TNET’s edge is concentrated in momentum 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 +1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TNET's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SON and TNET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TNET (TriNet Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SON (Sonoco Products Company): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
TNETTNET on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SONSON on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TNETTNET on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
TNETTNET on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
TNETTNET on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
SONSON on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TNET, analyst targets favor SON. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SON | TNET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +13.6% | SON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 TNET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TNET | 43 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | SONon balance | revenue growth 12.5% vs -3.9%; EPS growth 54.4% vs -38.6%; TTM ROE 18.3% vs 188.2%; gross margin 20.8% vs 19.1%; operating margin 8.9% vs 6.2% — SON takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TNET | Value 67 vs 72 |
| Technicals | TNET | Price vs 50-day -14.8% vs 1.9%; vs 200-day -5.4% vs 27.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TNET | Risk Resilience 41 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | SON | Target upside 29.6% vs 13.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SON and TNET 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 TNET.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TNET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TNET +14
- 43 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- TNET +15
- 45 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- TNET +2
- 55 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- TNET +5
- 58 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 22 when SON moved ahead of TNET.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.28%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.75%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
TNET 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 -1.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, 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.
- 1SON closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TNET's edge.
- 2SON's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TNET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
SON leads on balance| Metric | SON | TNET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.5% | -3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 54.4% | -38.6% |
| Gross margin | 20.8% | 19.1% |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.3% | 188.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.31 | 7.6 |
Performance
TNET leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SON | TNET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.5% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.6% | -0.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.1% | 38.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7% | 82.9% |
| Year to date | 11% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.9% | -4.8% |
Technicals
TNET has the stronger structure| Metric | SON | TNET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.5 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.8% | 1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.4% | 27.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29% | 39.7% |
Risk
TNET is the more resilient| Metric | SON | TNET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 0.14 |
| Max drawdown | -20.1% | -52.7% |
| Current drawdown | -20% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.5% | 48.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SON or TNET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TNET is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against SON's 43. The edge comes from momentum 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 SON or TNET the better buy right now?
TNET 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 TNET over SON?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TNET leads Momentum by 29 points; TNET leads Quality by 11 points; TNET leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. TNET leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by SON simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, SON or TNET?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for SON and +13.6% for TNET, so the Street currently favors SON. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TNET. 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, SON or TNET?
TNET is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TNET on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, SON or TNET?
SON 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, SON or TNET?
TNET on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, SON or TNET?
TNET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TNET 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 SON more profitable than TNET?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.8% vs 19.1%; operating margin 8.9% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 18.3% vs 188.2%. SON leads on two measures and TNET on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is TNET's lead over SON getting stronger or weaker?
TNET lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-22, when SON moved ahead of TNET.
What would change the SON vs TNET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SON closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TNET's edge; SON's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TNET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 SON and TNET?
SON: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TNET: 3 bullish / 1 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 SON is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TNET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SON and TNET 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.