UA vs UAA Stock Comparison
UA currently leads UAA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 44. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between UA and UAA?
UA leads the current stock comparison as Under Armour, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Under Armour, Inc. vs Under Armour, Inc.
UA leads
UA leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors UAA on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support UA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Under Armour, Inc.
Under Armour, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UA over UAA, 45 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. UA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. UA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UAA. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. UA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Under Armour, Inc. and Under Armour, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare UA 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.
- Risk Resilience47 vs 43UA +4
- Momentum58 vs 57Even
- Quality37 vs 37Even
- Value42 vs 42Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor UA. UA’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
UA's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UA and UAA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UA (Under Armour, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
UAA (Under Armour, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
UAUA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
UAUA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
UAAUAA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UA, analyst targets favor UAA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UA | UAA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.4% | +35.1% | UAA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +95.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UA. 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 | 45 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -6.3% vs -6.3%; EPS growth 101.3% vs 101.3%; TTM ROE -32.1% vs -32.1%; gross margin 47% vs 47%; operating margin 0.3% vs 0.3% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 42 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs -5.6%; vs 200-day -18.3% vs -18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | UA | Risk Resilience 47 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | UAA | Target upside 20.4% vs 35.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UA 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 UA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UA +1
- 45 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- UA +1
- 37 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 35 vs 35
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only UA
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
UA 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 -3.99%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1UAA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to UA's edge.
- 2UAA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | UA | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.3% | -6.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 101.3% | 101.3% |
| Gross margin | 47% | 47% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 0.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.1% | -32.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.96 | 0.96 |
Performance
UA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | UA | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | 3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -32.8% | -32.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.9% | -27.5% |
| Year to date | -0.8% | -1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | 2.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | UA | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.7 | 68.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | -5.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.3% | -18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.5% | 38.9% |
Risk
UA is the more resilient| Metric | UA | UAA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -46.5% | -47.5% |
| Current drawdown | -39.6% | -40% |
| Annualized volatility | 52.9% | 53.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UA or UAA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against UAA's 44. The edge comes from 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 UA or UAA the better buy right now?
UA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 UA over UAA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UA leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UA or UAA?
Analyst price targets imply +20.4% upside for UA and +35.1% for UAA, so the Street currently favors UAA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UA. 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, UA 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, UA or UAA?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, UA or UAA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, UA or UAA?
UA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UA 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 UA more profitable than UAA?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is UA's lead over UAA getting stronger or weaker?
UA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 UA vs UAA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UAA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to UA's edge; UAA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 UA and UAA?
UA: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 UA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UAA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare UA 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.