TX vs WOR Stock Comparison
Compare TX and WOR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between TX and WOR?
TX leads the current stock comparison as Ternium S.A., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ternium S.A. vs Worthington Industries, Inc.
TX leads
TX leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from WOR. Wall Street currently favors WOR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support TX, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ternium S.A.
Worthington Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TX over WOR, 63 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. TX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while WOR holds the stronger quality profile. TX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WOR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. TX lead: Reversed — WOR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TX now leads by 1.
Compare Ternium S.A. and Worthington Industries, 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 TX and WOR 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.
- Quality40 vs 53WOR +13
- Momentum78 vs 66TX +12
- Risk Resilience76 vs 65TX +11
- Value67 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor TX. TX’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; WOR keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
TX's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TX and WOR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TX (Ternium S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
WOR (Worthington Industries, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 33.7% against 18.7%.
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
TXTX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TXTX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TXTX on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
TXTX on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
WORWOR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TX, analyst targets favor WOR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TX | WOR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -7.6% | +15.9% | WOR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.2% | +3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TX. 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 | 63 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | TXon balance | revenue growth 10.3% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 63.6% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 5.8% vs 15.8%; gross margin 17.4% vs 27.3%; operating margin 7.5% vs 6% — TX takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 67 vs 65 |
| Technicals | TX | Price vs 50-day 14.3% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 29.9% vs 4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | TX | Risk Resilience 76 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | WOR | Target upside -7.6% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TX and WOR 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
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 TX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TX lead: Reversed — WOR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TX now leads by 1.
- Today
- TX +1
- 63 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- WOR +3
- 63 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- WOR +1
- 62 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- WOR +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when WOR moved ahead of TX.
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.
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
TX 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 +0.5%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.18%, 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.
- 1WOR closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to TX's edge.
- 2WOR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
TX leads on balance| Metric | TX | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.3% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 63.6% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 17.4% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.5% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.8% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.24 | 0.34 |
Performance
TX leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | TX | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 22% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 44.3% | 16.8% |
| Year to date | 50.9% | 11.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 67.9% | -11.2% |
Technicals
TX has the stronger structure| Metric | TX | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.5 | 54.4 |
| ADX (14) | 48.2 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.3% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.9% | 4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.7% | 33.7% |
Risk
TX is the more resilient| Metric | TX | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.75 | -0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.96 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -0.9% | -12% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.5% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TX or WOR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 63 against WOR's 62. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. WOR is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 TX or WOR the better buy right now?
TX 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TX over WOR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WOR leads Quality by 13 points; TX leads Momentum by 12 points; TX leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TX or WOR?
Analyst price targets imply -7.6% upside for TX and +15.9% for WOR, so the Street currently favors WOR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TX. 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, TX or WOR?
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, TX or WOR?
TX 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, TX or WOR?
TX on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, TX or WOR?
TX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TX 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 TX more profitable than WOR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.4% vs 27.3%; operating margin 7.5% vs 6%; ttm roe 5.8% vs 15.8%. TX leads on one measure and WOR 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 TX's lead over WOR getting stronger or weaker?
TX lead: Reversed — WOR led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TX now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when WOR moved ahead of TX.
What would change the TX vs WOR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WOR closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to TX's edge; WOR's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 TX and WOR?
TX: 4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WOR: 4 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 TX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WOR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TX and WOR 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.