SPY vs WLDN Stock Comparison

Compare SPY and WLDN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.

Market data as of Sep 11, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 2 points
SPY
Equity
vs
WLDN
Industrials
SPY
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
Leads
Price
$764
Day move
+0.85%
AIQ Score
60/100
Best edge
Risk Resilience
Sector
Equity
WLDN
Willdan Group, Inc.
Price
$82.20
Day move
+0.33%
AIQ Score
58/100
Best edge
Value
Sector
Industrials

What is the main difference between SPY and WLDN?

SPY leads the current stock comparison as State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF vs Willdan Group, Inc.

Data as of Sep 11, 2026· market close· WLDN (stock) vs SPY (ETF)· Coverage 66/66 fields· 42/42 directly comparable· Moderate confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 3/10

SPY leads

SPY leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.

Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support SPY, and its current signal state is conflicted.

Evidence agreement: 2 of 4Comparison trend: Stable
SPY

State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF

Leads
AIQ Score
60/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10
WLDN

Willdan Group, Inc.

AIQ Score
58/100
AIQ Edge Score
9/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPY over WLDN, 60 versus 58 as of Sep 11, 2026. SPY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WLDN holds the stronger value profile. SPY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.

Compare State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF and Willdan Group, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Price-return comparison using available daily close history.

SPY
+69.7%
WLDN
+114.3%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000

SPY $16,970 · WLDN $21,425

Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.

Compare SPY and WLDN against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

SPY advantage
0
WLDN advantage
  • Risk Resilience89 vs 57
    SPY +32
  • Value39 vs 66
    WLDN +27
  • Quality84 vs 64
    SPY +20
  • Momentum39 vs 43
    WLDN +4

2 of 4 evidence groups favor SPY. SPY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WLDN 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.

SPY-3 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -13

No new signals fired.

WLDN-1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -4

No new signals fired.

SPY's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SPY and WLDN both carry a full feed there.

The central trade-off

SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.

WLDN (Willdan Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 30.8% against 8.5%.

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

SPY

SPY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.

Growth

Even

Growth figures are not covered for both names.

Value

WLDN

WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.

Momentum

WLDN

WLDN on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.

Lower downside

SPY

SPY on Risk Resilience, by 32 points.

Analyst upside

Even

Analyst targets are level or not covered for both names.

AIQ vs Wall Street

Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.

MeasureSPYWLDNNote
Implied upside to target+33.8%Level
Target dispersion0%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusBuyContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering1Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor SPY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven60 vs 58
FundamentalsNot coveredNot covered
ValuationWLDNValue 39 vs 66
TechnicalsSPYPrice vs 50-day 0.8% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs -11.5%
Risk ResilienceSPYRisk Resilience 89 vs 57
Analyst expectationsNot coveredNot covered

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SPY and WLDN and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • 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 SPY.

How the comparison changed

119 daily snapshots · May 4 Sep 10

SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.

May 4SPY leads above the line · WLDN leads belowSep 10
Today
SPY +2
60 vs 58
7 sessions ago
Level
64 vs 64
30 sessions ago
SPY +3
69 vs 66
90 sessions ago
SPY +7
59 vs 52

The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when WLDN moved ahead of SPY.

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.

SPYConflicted

3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (6.24%)
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity bullish, risk, long horizon (2.5%)
WLDNConflicted

1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted

  • Death Cross Active bearish, trend, long horizon (16.93%)
  • Bollinger Band Squeeze neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon

SPY 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.

SPYDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.85%, AIQ -3 points).

WLDNDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.33%, AIQ -1 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.

  1. 1WLDN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge.
  2. 2WLDN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3SPY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
  4. 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

Split
MetricSPYWLDN
Revenue growth (YoY)48.9%
EPS growth (YoY)179.3%
Gross margin37.8%
Operating margin7.1%
Return on equity (TTM)20.9%
Debt to equity0.25

Performance

SPY leads 6 of 6 windows
MetricSPYWLDN
1 week (5 sessions)-1%-6.4%
1 month (20 sessions)-1.9%-3.5%
3 months (63 sessions)4.5%-15.3%
6 months (126 sessions)12.1%-2.4%
Year to date11.1%-21%
1 year (252 sessions)16.8%-16.1%

Technicals

SPY has the stronger structure
MetricSPYWLDN
RSI (14)45.138.6
ADX (14)12.322.7
Price vs 50-day0.8%3.8%
Price vs 200-day6.2%-11.5%
Volatility (1M, annualized)8.5%30.8%

Risk

SPY is the more resilient
MetricSPYWLDN
Beta11.71
Sharpe ratio0.950.01
Sortino ratio1.380.01
Max drawdown-9.1%-50.4%
Current drawdown-2.6%-39.3%
Annualized volatility12.9%61.3%
Value at risk (95%)-1.4%-4.7%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, SPY or WLDN?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against WLDN's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. WLDN 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 SPY or WLDN the better buy right now?

SPY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.

Why does the AIQ Score favor SPY over WLDN?

The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPY leads Risk Resilience by 32 points; WLDN leads Value by 27 points; SPY leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which has more analyst upside, SPY or WLDN?

Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for SPY and +33.8% for WLDN. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

Which is better value, SPY or WLDN?

WLDN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WLDN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, SPY or WLDN?

Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, SPY or WLDN?

WLDN on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, SPY or WLDN?

SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 32 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 SPY more profitable than WLDN?

Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.

Is SPY's lead over WLDN getting stronger or weaker?

SPY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when WLDN moved ahead of SPY.

What would change the SPY vs WLDN verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WLDN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPY's edge; WLDN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SPY'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 SPY and WLDN?

SPY: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WLDN: 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 SPY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WLDN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).

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.