TTD vs U Stock Comparison
Compare TTD and U across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TTD and U?
TTD leads the current stock comparison as The Trade Desk, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Trade Desk, Inc. vs Unity Software Inc.
TTD leads
TTD leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support TTD, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Trade Desk, Inc.
Unity Software Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TTD over U, 57 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. TTD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. TTD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TTD today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TTD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions. TTD leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare The Trade Desk, Inc. and Unity Software 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 TTD and U 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.
- Quality74 vs 46TTD +28
- Risk Resilience52 vs 39TTD +13
- Value49 vs 42TTD +7
- Momentum50 vs 43TTD +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor TTD. TTD’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
TTD's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TTD and U both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TTD (The Trade Desk, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
U (Unity Software Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
TTDTTD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TTDTTD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
TTDTTD on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
TTDTTD on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
TTDTTD 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 | TTD | U | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +34% | -7.4% | TTD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +151% | +66.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 23 | 14 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TTD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TTD | 57 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | TTDon balance | revenue growth 3.8% vs 7.5%; EPS growth 75% vs 93.8%; TTM ROE 16.1% vs -18.9%; gross margin 83% vs 61.6%; operating margin 19.6% vs -29.9% — TTD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TTD | Value 49 vs 42 |
| Technicals | U | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 17.5%; vs 200-day -43.3% vs 31% |
| Risk Resilience | TTD | Risk Resilience 52 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | TTD | Target upside 34% vs -7.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TTD and U 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 TTD.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TTD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TTD +14
- 57 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- TTD +15
- 58 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- TTD +7
- 58 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- TTD +16
- 62 vs 46
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (51.08%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.42%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
TTD 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 up over the latest session (price +2.65%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.49%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1U closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TTD's edge.
- 2U generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3TTD'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
TTD leads on balance| Metric | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.8% | 7.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 75% | 93.8% |
| Gross margin | 83% | 61.6% |
| Operating margin | 19.6% | -29.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.1% | -18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | 0.76 |
Performance
U leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4% | 3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.6% | -5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.6% | 57.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -48.8% | 109.9% |
| Year to date | -63.2% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -73.2% | -7.5% |
Technicals
U has the stronger structure| Metric | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.5 | 27.8 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 35 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 17.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -43.3% | 31% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.3% | 32% |
Risk
TTD is the more resilient| Metric | TTD | U |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.1 | 0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.87 | 0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -75.9% | -65.4% |
| Current drawdown | -74.2% | -15% |
| Annualized volatility | 57.1% | 72.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -6.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TTD or U?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TTD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against U's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 TTD or U the better buy right now?
TTD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 TTD over U?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TTD leads Quality by 28 points; TTD leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; TTD leads Value by 7 points. TTD leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by U simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, TTD or U?
Analyst price targets imply +34% upside for TTD and -7.4% for U, so the Street currently favors TTD. 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, TTD or U?
TTD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TTD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, TTD or U?
U 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, TTD or U?
TTD on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, TTD or U?
TTD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TTD on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 TTD more profitable than U?
TTD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 83% vs 61.6%; operating margin 19.6% vs -29.9%; ttm roe 16.1% vs -18.9%.
Is TTD's lead over U getting stronger or weaker?
TTD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TTD vs U verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: U closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to TTD's edge; u generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; TTD'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 TTD and U?
TTD: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. U: 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 TTD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On U it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TTD and U 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.