SON vs WSC Stock Comparison
Compare SON vs WSC on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between SON and WSC?
SON and WSC are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sonoco Products Company vs WillScot Holdings Corporation
SON and WSC are effectively level
SON and WSC are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Sonoco Products Company
WillScot Holdings Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate SON and WSC as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Sonoco Products Company and WillScot Holdings Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare SON 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 Resilience49 vs 32SON +17
- Quality15 vs 22WSC +7
- Momentum45 vs 51WSC +6
- Value68 vs 66Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SON's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SON and WSC both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
WSCWSC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WSCWSC on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
SONSON on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
WSCWSC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | SON | WSC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.8% | +34.7% | WSC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.3% | +44.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | WSCon balance | revenue growth 8.3% vs 11.6%; EPS growth -8% vs 62.5%; TTM ROE -6.1% vs -7.5%; gross margin 20.2% vs 48.4%; operating margin -2.3% vs 20.2% — WSC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 68 vs 66 |
| Technicals | SON | Price vs 50-day -2% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day -6.9% vs -18% |
| Risk Resilience | SON | Risk Resilience 49 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | WSC | Target upside 16.8% vs 34.7% |
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SON lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- SON +13
- 53 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- SON +10
- 48 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- SON +18
- 54 vs 36
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WSC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.22%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +0.14%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.24%, AIQ +1 points).
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
WSC leads on balance| Metric | SON | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 11.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8% | 62.5% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 48.4% |
| Operating margin | -2.3% | 20.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.1% | -7.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.62 | 4.17 |
Performance
SON leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SON | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.3% | 8.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.1% | 4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.2% | -25.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -0.8% | -18.5% |
| Year to date | 11.7% | -4.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.8% | -20% |
Technicals
SON has the stronger structure| Metric | SON | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53 | 60 |
| ADX (14) | 26 | 34.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.9% | -18% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 44.3% |
Risk
SON is the more resilient| Metric | SON | WSC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.42 | 1.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.64 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.77 | -0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -21.2% | -46.2% |
| Current drawdown | -19.5% | -38.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.9% | 52.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, SON or WSC?
Analyst price targets imply +16.8% upside for SON and +34.7% for WSC, so the Street currently favors WSC. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, SON or WSC?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 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, SON or WSC?
WSC on the Momentum factor, by 6 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 WSC?
SON is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SON on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 WSC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 48.4%; operating margin -2.3% vs 20.2%; ttm roe -6.1% vs -7.5%. SON leads on one measure and WSC on two measures, 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.
What do the current signals say about SON and WSC?
SON: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WSC: 1 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 SON is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WSC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SON 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.