TPR vs TSCO Stock Comparison
TSCO currently leads TPR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while TPR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TPR and TSCO?
TSCO leads the current stock comparison as Tractor Supply Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tapestry, Inc. vs Tractor Supply Company
TSCO leads
TSCO leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TPR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support TSCO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tapestry, Inc.
Tractor Supply Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TSCO over TPR, 52 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. TSCO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TPR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. TSCO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TPR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSCO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. TSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Tapestry, Inc. and Tractor Supply Company 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 TPR and TSCO 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.
- Quality33 vs 54TSCO +21
- Value39 vs 52TSCO +13
- Momentum49 vs 53TSCO +4
- Risk Resilience50 vs 46TPR +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor TSCO. TSCO’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TPR keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
TSCO's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TPR and TSCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TSCO (Tractor Supply Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
TPR (Tapestry, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
TSCOTSCO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TSCOTSCO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TSCOTSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
TSCOTSCO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
TPRTPR on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
TPRTPR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TSCO, analyst targets favor TPR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TPR | TSCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.1% | +11.8% | TPR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.8% | +60.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 16 | 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 | TPR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 34.76% | 25.12% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.338 | $0.300 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.500 | $0.920 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #4 |
TPR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 34.76% a year against TSCO's 25.12%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window. They are ranked in different cohorts — variable-dividend payers and US dividend-paying corporations — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TSCO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TSCO | 41 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | TPRon balance | revenue growth -2.3% vs 26.4%; EPS growth 1.2% vs 122.6%; TTM ROE 262.8% vs 39.3%; gross margin 77.8% vs 32.5%; operating margin 23.9% vs 8.9% — TPR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TSCO | Value 39 vs 52 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day -14.8% vs -15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | TPR | Risk Resilience 50 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | TPR | Target upside 54.1% vs 11.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TPR and TSCO 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 11 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 TSCO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TSCO +11
- 41 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- TSCO +8
- 43 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- TSCO +5
- 40 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- TSCO +17
- 40 vs 57
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 13 when TSCO moved ahead of TPR.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TSCO
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TSCO 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 down over the latest session (price -2.03%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.67%, 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.
- 1TPR closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSCO's edge.
- 2TPR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
TPR leads on balance| Metric | TPR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.3% | 26.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 122.6% |
| Gross margin | 77.8% | 32.5% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 8.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 262.8% | 39.3% |
| Debt to equity | 5.71 | 2.49 |
Performance
TPR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TPR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | -2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.4% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.2% | 12.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -21.9% | -16.8% |
| Year to date | -8% | -34.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.9% | -40.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | TPR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 62.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 18.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.8% | -15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 28.1% |
Risk
TPR is the more resilient| Metric | TPR | TSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -1.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.15 | -2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -48.3% |
| Current drawdown | -28.7% | -41.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 32.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TPR or TSCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TSCO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against TPR's 41. The edge comes from quality and value. TPR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 TPR or TSCO the better buy right now?
TSCO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TSCO over TPR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TSCO leads Quality by 21 points; TSCO leads Value by 13 points; TSCO leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TPR or TSCO?
Analyst price targets imply +54.1% upside for TPR and +11.8% for TSCO, so the Street currently favors TPR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TSCO. 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, TPR or TSCO?
TSCO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TSCO 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, TPR or TSCO?
TSCO 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, TPR or TSCO?
TSCO on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, TPR or TSCO?
TPR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TPR 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 TPR more profitable than TSCO?
TPR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.8% vs 32.5%; operating margin 23.9% vs 8.9%; ttm roe 262.8% vs 39.3%.
Is TSCO's lead over TPR getting stronger or weaker?
TSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-13, when TSCO moved ahead of TPR.
What would change the TPR vs TSCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPR closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to TSCO's edge; TPR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 TPR and TSCO?
TPR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. TSCO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 TPR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSCO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TPR and TSCO 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.