UA vs VFC Stock Comparison
VFC currently leads UA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 45. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between UA and VFC?
VFC leads the current stock comparison as V.F. Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Under Armour, Inc. vs V.F. Corporation
VFC leads
VFC leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UA on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support VFC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Under Armour, Inc.
V.F. Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VFC over UA, 55 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. VFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. VFC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. VFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 10 points over 30 sessions. VFC 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 Under Armour, Inc. and V.F. Corporation 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 UA and VFC 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.
- Momentum58 vs 79VFC +21
- Risk Resilience47 vs 55VFC +8
- Value42 vs 48VFC +6
- Quality37 vs 41VFC +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor VFC. VFC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and 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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
VFC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UA and VFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VFC (V.F. Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
UA (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
VFCVFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UAUA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VFCVFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
VFCVFC on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
VFCVFC on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
UAUA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors VFC, analyst targets favor UA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UA | VFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +20.4% | +9% | UA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +53.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VFC | 45 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -6.3% vs -22.9%; EPS growth 101.3% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE -32.1% vs 15.9%; gross margin 47% vs 54.6% |
| Valuation | VFC | Value 42 vs 48 |
| Technicals | VFC | Price vs 50-day -5.3% vs 20.5%; vs 200-day -18.3% vs 2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VFC | Risk Resilience 47 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | UA | Target upside 20.4% vs 9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UA and VFC 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 moderate at 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 VFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20VFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VFC +10
- 45 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- VFC +8
- 45 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- VFC +16
- 37 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- VFC +4
- 35 vs 39
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 29 when UA moved ahead of VFC.
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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.72%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VFC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
VFC 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.78%, 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.
- 1UA closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to VFC's edge.
- 2UA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3VFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate VFC's advantage entirely.
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 | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.3% | -22.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 101.3% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 47% | 54.6% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 6.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.1% | 15.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.96 | 2.81 |
Performance
VFC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | UA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | 8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | 28.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -32.8% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.9% | -18.8% |
| Year to date | -0.8% | -3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 3% | 23.2% |
Technicals
VFC has the stronger structure| Metric | UA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.7 | 91.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.2 | 43.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.3% | 20.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.3% | 2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.5% | 29.9% |
Risk
VFC is the more resilient| Metric | UA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.32 | 1.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.37 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -46.5% | -41.4% |
| Current drawdown | -39.6% | -19% |
| Annualized volatility | 52.9% | 48.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UA or VFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VFC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against UA's 45. The edge comes from momentum 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 UA or VFC the better buy right now?
VFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor VFC over UA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. VFC leads Momentum by 21 points; VFC leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; VFC leads Value by 6 points. VFC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by UA 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, UA or VFC?
Analyst price targets imply +20.4% upside for UA and +9% for VFC, so the Street currently favors UA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors VFC. 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 VFC?
VFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, UA or VFC?
UA 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, UA or VFC?
VFC on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, UA or VFC?
VFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VFC on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 VFC?
VFC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47% vs 54.6%; operating margin 0.3% vs 6.1%; ttm roe -32.1% vs 15.9%.
Is VFC's lead over UA getting stronger or weaker?
VFC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-29, when UA moved ahead of VFC.
What would change the UA vs VFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UA closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to VFC's edge; UA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; VFC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate VFC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about UA and VFC?
UA: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. VFC: 2 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 VFC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare UA and VFC 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.