TU vs VZ Stock Comparison
VZ currently leads TU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while TU has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between TU and VZ?
VZ leads the current stock comparison as Verizon Communications Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Telus Corp vs Verizon Communications Inc.
VZ leads
VZ leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors TU on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support VZ, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Telus Corp
Verizon Communications Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VZ over TU, 47 versus 40 as of Oct 21, 2026. VZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while TU holds the stronger risk resilience profile. VZ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TU. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VZ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Telus Corp and Verizon Communications 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 TU 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.
- Quality17 vs 45VZ +28
- Risk Resilience45 vs 34TU +11
- Momentum43 vs 36TU +7
- Value59 vs 64VZ +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor VZ. VZ’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; TU 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 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
VZ's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TU and VZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VZ (Verizon Communications Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
TU (Telus Corp): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, 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
VZVZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TUTU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VZVZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
TUTU on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
TUTU on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
TUTU 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 TU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TU | VZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.3% | +10.2% | TU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.2% | +19.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | TU | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 8.69% | 1.95% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.783 | $2.473 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.187 | $2.723 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #128 | #332 |
TU grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.69% a year against VZ's 1.95%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
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 | 40 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | VZon balance | revenue growth -1.4% vs -0.5%; EPS growth -14.4% vs -23.3%; TTM ROE -6.6% vs 15.5%; gross margin 38.9% vs 59.1%; operating margin 14.8% vs 20.5% — VZ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | VZ | Value 59 vs 64 |
| Technicals | VZ | Price vs 50-day -6.5% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day -26.6% vs -4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | TU | Risk Resilience 45 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | TU | Target upside 31.3% vs 10.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TU 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VZ +7
- 40 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- VZ +6
- 39 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- VZ +8
- 37 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- VZ +19
- 35 vs 54
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only TU
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.58%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only VZ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.28%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TU is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.95%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.2%, 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.
- 1TU closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge.
- 2TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
VZ leads on balance| Metric | TU | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.4% | -0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -14.4% | -23.3% |
| Gross margin | 38.9% | 59.1% |
| Operating margin | 14.8% | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.6% | 15.5% |
| Debt to equity | 2.37 | 1.81 |
Performance
VZ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | TU | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.8% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.1% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.2% | -3.7% |
| Year to date | -35.8% | 9.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -43.9% | 10.4% |
Technicals
VZ has the stronger structure| Metric | TU | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.7 | 43.4 |
| ADX (14) | 39.6 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.5% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.6% | -4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.8% | 41.3% |
Risk
TU is the more resilient| Metric | TU | VZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | -0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.41 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.77 | 0.46 |
| Max drawdown | -49.6% | -19.1% |
| Current drawdown | -44.8% | -13.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.1% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TU or VZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VZ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against TU's 40. The edge comes from quality and value. TU 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 TU or VZ the better buy right now?
VZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 TU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VZ leads Quality by 28 points; TU leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; TU leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TU or VZ?
Analyst price targets imply +31.3% upside for TU and +10.2% for VZ, so the Street currently favors TU. 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, TU or VZ?
VZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, TU or VZ?
TU 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, TU or VZ?
TU 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, TU or VZ?
TU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TU on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 TU more profitable than VZ?
VZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.9% vs 59.1%; operating margin 14.8% vs 20.5%; ttm roe -6.6% vs 15.5%.
Is VZ's lead over TU getting stronger or weaker?
VZ lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TU vs VZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TU closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to VZ's edge; TU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 TU and VZ?
TU: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VZ: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 TU is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VZ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TU 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.