TAL vs YUMC Stock Comparison
Compare TAL and YUMC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TAL and YUMC?
TAL leads the current stock comparison as TAL Education Group, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TAL Education Group vs Yum China Holdings, Inc.
TAL leads
TAL leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors YUMC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TAL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TAL Education Group
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TAL over YUMC, 62 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. TAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. TAL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors YUMC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TAL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. TAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare TAL Education Group and Yum China Holdings, 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 TAL and YUMC 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.
- Momentum62 vs 23TAL +39
- Quality78 vs 49TAL +29
- Value55 vs 51TAL +4
- Risk Resilience44 vs 45Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TAL. TAL’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 +8
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
TAL's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TAL and YUMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TAL (TAL Education Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
YUMC (Yum China Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
TALTAL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TALTAL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TALTAL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
TALTAL on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
YUMCYUMC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
YUMCYUMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TAL, analyst targets favor YUMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TAL | YUMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.2% | +39.4% | YUMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 TAL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TAL | 62 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | TALon balance | revenue growth -6.1% vs -4.1%; EPS growth 64.4% vs -20.5%; TTM ROE 24.6% vs 17.8%; gross margin 56% vs 17.2%; operating margin 12.5% vs 12.2% — TAL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TAL | Value 55 vs 51 |
| Technicals | TAL | Price vs 50-day 4.8% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day 4.5% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 44 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | YUMC | Target upside 15.2% vs 39.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TAL and YUMC 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 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 TAL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TAL +20
- 62 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- TAL +22
- 65 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- TAL +6
- 59 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- TAL +14
- 59 vs 45
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.39%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.48%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TAL 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.7%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, 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.
- 1YUMC closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to TAL's edge.
- 2YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TAL'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
TAL leads on balance| Metric | TAL | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.1% | -4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 64.4% | -20.5% |
| Gross margin | 56% | 17.2% |
| Operating margin | 12.5% | 12.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.6% | 17.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.1 | 0.43 |
Performance
TAL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TAL | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | -5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.1% | -11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.7% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.5% | -19.2% |
| Year to date | 5.4% | -11.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.8% | -4.8% |
Technicals
TAL has the stronger structure| Metric | TAL | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.5 | 14.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 28.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.8% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.5% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.7% | 26.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TAL | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.77 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.31 | -0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.58 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -30.7% | -30.7% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -27% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.8% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TAL or YUMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TAL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against YUMC's 42. 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 TAL or YUMC the better buy right now?
TAL 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 TAL over YUMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TAL leads Momentum by 39 points; TAL leads Quality by 29 points; TAL leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TAL or YUMC?
Analyst price targets imply +15.2% upside for TAL and +39.4% for YUMC, so the Street currently favors YUMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TAL. 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, TAL or YUMC?
TAL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TAL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, TAL or YUMC?
TAL 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, TAL or YUMC?
TAL on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, TAL or YUMC?
YUMC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. YUMC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is TAL more profitable than YUMC?
TAL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56% vs 17.2%; operating margin 12.5% vs 12.2%; ttm roe 24.6% vs 17.8%.
Is TAL's lead over YUMC getting stronger or weaker?
TAL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 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 TAL vs YUMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: YUMC closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to TAL's edge; YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TAL'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 TAL and YUMC?
TAL: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. YUMC: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 TAL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On YUMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TAL and YUMC 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.