T vs TU Stock Comparison
T currently leads TU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while TU has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between T and TU?
T leads the current stock comparison as AT&T Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AT&T Inc. vs Telus Corp
T leads
T leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TU on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support T, and its lead is narrowing.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors T over TU, 49 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. T's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while TU holds the stronger momentum profile. T also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TU. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor T today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AT&T Inc. and Telus Corp 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 T and TU 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.
- Quality54 vs 17T +37
- Momentum34 vs 43TU +9
- Risk Resilience41 vs 45TU +4
- Value62 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor T. T’s edge is concentrated in quality; TU keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
T's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — T and TU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
T (AT&T Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
TU (Telus Corp): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
TT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TUTU on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
TUTU on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
TUTU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors T, analyst targets favor TU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | T | TU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21% | +31.3% | TU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.9% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | T | TU |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | -11.80% | 8.69% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.080 | $0.783 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.110 | $1.187 |
| Years increased | 0 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (2) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #128 |
TU grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.69% a year against T's -11.80%. TU never reduced its regular dividend in the window; T did in 2 years.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor T. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | T | 49 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | T | revenue growth 0.2% vs -1.4%; EPS growth 22.2% vs -14.4%; TTM ROE 19.5% vs -6.6%; gross margin 59.7% vs 38.9%; operating margin 20.4% vs 14.8% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 62 vs 59 |
| Technicals | T | Price vs 50-day -12% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs -26.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TU | Risk Resilience 41 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | TU | Target upside 21% vs 31.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of T and TU and are excluded from the count.
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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 T.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- T +9
- 49 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- T +9
- 48 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- T +14
- 51 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- T +21
- 56 vs 35
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only T
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TU
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
TU is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -6.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.95%, 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.
- 1TU closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to T's edge.
- 2TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3T starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate T's advantage entirely.
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
T leads on balance| Metric | T | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.2% | -1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.2% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 59.7% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.5% | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 2.37 |
Performance
T leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | T | TU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | 5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.7% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.6% | -17.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.5% | -31.2% |
| Year to date | -5.7% | -35.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.6% | -43.9% |
Technicals
T has the stronger structure| Metric | T | TU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.8 | 51.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.7 | 39.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | -26.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.6% | 31.8% |
Risk
TU is the more resilient| Metric | T | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.37 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.44 | -2.41 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.57 | -2.77 |
| Max drawdown | -29.6% | -49.6% |
| Current drawdown | -19.5% | -44.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 25.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, T or TU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, T is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against TU's 40. The edge comes from quality. TU is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 T or TU the better buy right now?
T carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor T over TU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. T leads Quality by 37 points; TU leads Momentum by 9 points; TU leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, T or TU?
Analyst price targets imply +21% upside for T and +31.3% for TU, so the Street currently favors TU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors T. 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, T or TU?
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, T or TU?
T 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, T or TU?
TU on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, T or TU?
TU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TU on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 T more profitable than TU?
T leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 59.7% vs 38.9%; operating margin 20.4% vs 14.8%; ttm roe 19.5% vs -6.6%.
Is T's lead over TU getting stronger or weaker?
T lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the T vs TU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TU closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to T's edge; TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; t starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate T's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about T and TU?
T: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. TU: 1 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 T is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare T and TU 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.