TMUS vs VZ Stock Comparison
Compare TMUS and VZ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TMUS and VZ?
VZ leads the current stock comparison as Verizon Communications Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
T-Mobile US, Inc. vs Verizon Communications Inc.
VZ leads
VZ leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMUS on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support VZ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
T-Mobile US, Inc.
Verizon Communications Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VZ over TMUS, 57 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. VZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. VZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMUS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VZ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. VZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare T-Mobile US, Inc. and Verizon Communications 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 TMUS and VZ 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.
- Momentum35 vs 68VZ +33
- Value46 vs 64VZ +18
- Risk Resilience42 vs 46VZ +4
- Quality43 vs 45Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor VZ. VZ’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
VZ'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 VZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VZ (Verizon Communications Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
TMUS (T-Mobile US, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.2% against 16.5%.
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
VZVZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TMUSTMUS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VZVZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
VZVZ on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
VZVZ on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
TMUSTMUS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VZ, analyst targets favor TMUS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMUS | VZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | -5% | TMUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.1% | +19.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 6 | 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 VZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VZ | 42 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -1.4% vs -0.5%; EPS growth 31.1% vs -23.3%; TTM ROE 18.2% vs 15.5%; gross margin 54.5% vs 59.1%; operating margin 20.3% vs 20.5% |
| Valuation | VZ | Value 46 vs 64 |
| Technicals | VZ | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day -8.7% vs 9% |
| Risk Resilience | VZ | Risk Resilience 42 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | TMUS | Target upside 29.6% vs -5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMUS and VZ and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 VZ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10VZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VZ +15
- 42 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- VZ +11
- 48 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- VZ +10
- 49 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- VZ +2
- 42 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when VZ moved ahead of TMUS.
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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.97%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VZ 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.
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.28%, 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.
- 1TMUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge.
- 2TMUS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split| Metric | TMUS | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.4% | -0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 31.1% | -23.3% |
| Gross margin | 54.5% | 59.1% |
| Operating margin | 20.3% | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.2% | 15.5% |
| Debt to equity | 2.06 | 1.81 |
Performance
VZ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TMUS | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | 6.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | -1.4% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | 22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -27.1% | 15.4% |
Technicals
VZ has the stronger structure| Metric | TMUS | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.3 | 57.8 |
| ADX (14) | 10.2 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.7% | 9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 16.5% |
Risk
VZ is the more resilient| Metric | TMUS | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.32 | -0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.06 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.46 | 0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -30.9% | -18.3% |
| Current drawdown | -27% | -2.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.3% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMUS or VZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against TMUS's 42. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 VZ the better buy right now?
VZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VZ over TMUS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VZ leads Momentum by 33 points; VZ leads Value by 18 points; VZ leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMUS or VZ?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for TMUS and -5% for VZ, so the Street currently favors TMUS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VZ. 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, TMUS or VZ?
VZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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 VZ?
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 VZ?
VZ on the Momentum factor, by 33 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 VZ?
VZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VZ 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 TMUS more profitable than VZ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.5% vs 59.1%; operating margin 20.3% vs 20.5%; ttm roe 18.2% vs 15.5%. Each name leads on one measure, 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.
Is VZ's lead over TMUS getting stronger or weaker?
VZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 15 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-21, when VZ moved ahead of TMUS.
What would change the TMUS vs VZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge; TMUS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 TMUS and VZ?
TMUS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. VZ: 4 bullish / 1 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 TMUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VZ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMUS and VZ 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.