TOST vs TXRH Stock Comparison
Compare TOST and TXRH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TOST and TXRH?
TOST leads the current stock comparison as Toast, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Toast, Inc. vs Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
TOST leads
TOST leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TOST, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Toast, Inc.
Texas Roadhouse, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TOST over TXRH, 53 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. TOST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. TOST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TOST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Toast, Inc. and Texas Roadhouse, 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 TOST and TXRH 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.
- Value58 vs 29TOST +29
- Quality66 vs 54TOST +12
- Momentum30 vs 25TOST +5
- Risk Resilience57 vs 55Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TOST. TOST’s edge is concentrated in value 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 -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
TOST's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TOST and TXRH both carry a full feed there.
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
TOSTTOST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TOSTTOST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TOSTTOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
TOSTTOST on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
TXRHTXRH carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst 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.
| Measure | TOST | TXRH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +14.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +46.2% | +28.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TOST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TOST | 53 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 17.1% vs 2.9%; TTM ROE 23.8% vs 27.6%; gross margin 26.7% vs 15.3%; operating margin 6.4% vs 8% |
| Valuation | TOST | Value 58 vs 29 |
| Technicals | TOST | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs -8.4%; vs 200-day 6.1% vs 0.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 57 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 14.5% vs 14.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TOST and TXRH 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
- 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 TOST.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TOST +14
- 53 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- TOST +21
- 60 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- TOST +18
- 63 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- TOST +11
- 63 vs 52
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 29 when TOST moved ahead of TXRH.
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 / 2 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.45%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.96%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TOST 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 +0.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.09%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1TXRH closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge.
- 2TXRH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TOST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate TOST'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
Split| Metric | TOST | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.1% | 2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.6% | -0.5% |
| Gross margin | 26.7% | 15.3% |
| Operating margin | 6.4% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.8% | 27.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.7 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | TOST | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.2% | -11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31.4% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.3% | 5.2% |
| Year to date | -10.1% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -21.6% | 8.1% |
Technicals
TOST has the stronger structure| Metric | TOST | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.8 | 20.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 30.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.1% | 0.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.7% | 21.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | TOST | TXRH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.39 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.55 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -46.2% | -20% |
| Current drawdown | -23% | -15.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.4% | 30.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TOST or TXRH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TOST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against TXRH's 39. The edge comes from value 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 TOST or TXRH the better buy right now?
TOST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 TOST over TXRH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TOST leads Value by 29 points; TOST leads Quality by 12 points; TOST leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TOST or TXRH?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for TOST and +14.6% for TXRH. 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, TOST or TXRH?
TOST is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TOST on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, TOST or TXRH?
TOST 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, TOST or TXRH?
TOST on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, TOST or TXRH?
TXRH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXRH 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 TOST more profitable than TXRH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 26.7% vs 15.3%; operating margin 6.4% vs 8%; ttm roe 23.8% vs 27.6%. TOST leads on one measure and TXRH on two measures, 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 TOST's lead over TXRH getting stronger or weaker?
TOST lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 14 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-29, when TOST moved ahead of TXRH.
What would change the TOST vs TXRH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXRH closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge; TXRH's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TOST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate TOST's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about TOST and TXRH?
TOST: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted. TXRH: 2 bullish / 2 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 TOST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TXRH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TOST and TXRH 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.