TMUS vs TU Stock Comparison
Compare TMUS and TU across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMUS and TU?
TMUS leads the current stock comparison as T-Mobile US, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
T-Mobile US, Inc. vs Telus Corp
TMUS leads
TMUS leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TMUS, and its lead is narrowing.
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Telus Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TMUS over TU, 42 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 2026. TMUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while TU holds the stronger value profile. TMUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TMUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare T-Mobile US, Inc. and Telus Corp 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 TMUS 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.
- Quality43 vs 17TMUS +26
- Value46 vs 59TU +13
- Momentum35 vs 25TMUS +10
- Risk Resilience42 vs 47TU +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TMUS. TMUS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; TU 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
TMUS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMUS and TU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TMUS (T-Mobile US, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
TU (Telus Corp): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
TMUSTMUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMUSTMUS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TUTU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
TMUSTMUS on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
TUTU on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
TMUSTMUS 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 | TMUS | TU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +26.4% | TMUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.1% | +8.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TMUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TMUS | 42 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | TMUS | revenue growth -1.4% vs -1.4%; EPS growth 31.1% vs -14.4%; TTM ROE 18.2% vs -6.6%; gross margin 54.5% vs 38.9%; operating margin 20.3% vs 14.8% |
| Valuation | TU | Value 46 vs 59 |
| Technicals | TMUS | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs -9%; vs 200-day -8.7% vs -25.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TU | Risk Resilience 42 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | TMUS | Target upside 29.6% vs 26.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMUS and TU 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 TMUS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TMUS +6
- 42 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- TMUS +7
- 48 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- TMUS +13
- 49 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- TMUS +6
- 42 vs 36
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when TMUS moved ahead of TU.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.85%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.67%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 +2.92%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.11%, 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 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMUS's edge.
- 2TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TMUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate TMUS'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
TMUS leads on balance| Metric | TMUS | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.4% | -1.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 31.1% | -14.4% |
| Gross margin | 54.5% | 38.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.3% | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.2% | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.06 | 2.37 |
Performance
TMUS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TMUS | TU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -4.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | -23.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | -31.5% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | -27.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | -43.7% |
Technicals
TMUS has the stronger structure| Metric | TMUS | TU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.3 | 17 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 20.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | -9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.7% | -25.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 24.6% |
Risk
TU is the more resilient| Metric | TMUS | TU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.32 | 0.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.06 | -2.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | -2.77 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -44.5% |
| Current drawdown | -27% | -44.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 23.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMUS or TU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TMUS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against TU's 36. The edge comes from quality and momentum. TU 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 TMUS or TU the better buy right now?
TMUS 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 TMUS over TU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TMUS leads Quality by 26 points; TU leads Value by 13 points; TMUS leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMUS or TU?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for TMUS and +26.4% for TU, so the Street currently favors TMUS. 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, TMUS or TU?
TU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, TMUS or TU?
TMUS 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, TMUS or TU?
TMUS on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, TMUS or TU?
TU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TU on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 TMUS more profitable than TU?
TMUS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 54.5% vs 38.9%; operating margin 20.3% vs 14.8%; ttm roe 18.2% vs -6.6%.
Is TMUS's lead over TU getting stronger or weaker?
TMUS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 6 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 2026-07-31, when TMUS moved ahead of TU.
What would change the TMUS 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 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to TMUS's edge; TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TMUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate TMUS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TMUS and TU?
TMUS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. TU: 2 bullish / 5 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 TMUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TMUS 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.