TPR vs UAA Stock Comparison
UAA currently leads TPR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 41. The clearest difference is momentum, while TPR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TPR and UAA?
UAA leads the current stock comparison as Under Armour, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Tapestry, Inc. vs Under Armour, Inc.
UAA leads
UAA leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from TPR. Wall Street currently favors TPR on target upside.
Fragile: 0 of 6 evidence groups support UAA, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Tapestry, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UAA over TPR, 44 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. UAA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while TPR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UAA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TPR. 0 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. UAA lead: Reversed — TPR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UAA now leads by 3.
Compare Tapestry, Inc. and Under Armour, Inc. 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 UAA 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.
- Momentum49 vs 57UAA +8
- Risk Resilience50 vs 43TPR +7
- Quality33 vs 37UAA +4
- Value39 vs 42Even
0 of 6 evidence groups favor UAA. UAA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; 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 -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
UAA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TPR and UAA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UAA (Under Armour, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
TPR (Tapestry, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, technicals.
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
UAAUAA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UAAUAA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UAAUAA on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
TPRTPR on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 UAA, analyst targets favor TPR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TPR | UAA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.1% | +35.1% | TPR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.8% | +95.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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
0 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 41 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | TPRon balance | revenue growth -2.3% vs -6.3%; EPS growth 1.2% vs 101.3%; TTM ROE 262.8% vs -32.1%; gross margin 77.8% vs 47% — TPR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 39 vs 42 |
| Technicals | TPR | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs -5.6%; vs 200-day -14.8% vs -18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | TPR | Risk Resilience 50 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | TPR | Target upside 54.1% vs 35.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TPR and UAA 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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)
- 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 UAA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UAA lead: Reversed — TPR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UAA now leads by 3.
- Today
- UAA +3
- 41 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- UAA +2
- 43 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- TPR +4
- 40 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- TPR +5
- 40 vs 35
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when UAA 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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only UAA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.97%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
UAA 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -4.3%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAA's edge.
- 2TPR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UAA'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 | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.3% | -6.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 101.3% |
| Gross margin | 77.8% | 47% |
| Operating margin | 23.9% | 0.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 262.8% | -32.1% |
| Debt to equity | 5.71 | 0.96 |
Performance
TPR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TPR | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.4% | 3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.2% | -32.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -21.9% | -27.5% |
| Year to date | -8% | -1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.9% | 2.5% |
Technicals
TPR has the stronger structure| Metric | TPR | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.3 | 68.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | -5.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.8% | -18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.4% | 38.9% |
Risk
TPR is the more resilient| Metric | TPR | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.98 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.15 | 0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -32.9% | -47.5% |
| Current drawdown | -28.7% | -40% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.7% | 53.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TPR or UAA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UAA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against TPR's 41. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 UAA the better buy right now?
UAA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UAA over TPR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UAA leads Momentum by 8 points; TPR leads Risk Resilience by 7 points; UAA leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TPR or UAA?
Analyst price targets imply +54.1% upside for TPR and +35.1% for UAA, so the Street currently favors TPR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UAA. 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 UAA?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 UAA?
UAA 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 UAA?
UAA on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 UAA?
TPR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TPR on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 UAA?
TPR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 77.8% vs 47%; operating margin 23.9% vs 0.3%; ttm roe 262.8% vs -32.1%.
Is UAA's lead over TPR getting stronger or weaker?
UAA lead: Reversed — TPR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; UAA now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when UAA moved ahead of TPR.
What would change the TPR vs UAA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TPR closes the Momentum gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAA's edge; TPR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UAA'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 UAA?
TPR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. UAA: 1 bullish / 2 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 TPR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UAA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare TPR and UAA 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.