UAA vs WHR Stock Comparison
UAA currently leads WHR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 35. The clearest difference is momentum, while WHR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between UAA and WHR?
UAA leads the current stock comparison as Under Armour, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Under Armour, Inc. vs Whirlpool Corporation
UAA leads
UAA leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WHR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support UAA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Under Armour, Inc.
Whirlpool Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UAA over WHR, 44 versus 35 as of Oct 21, 2026. UAA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while WHR holds the stronger value profile. UAA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WHR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. UAA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Under Armour, Inc. and Whirlpool 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 UAA and WHR 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.
- Momentum57 vs 28UAA +29
- Quality37 vs 12UAA +25
- Value42 vs 62WHR +20
- Risk Resilience43 vs 41Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor UAA. UAA’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; WHR keeps a meaningful value 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 -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
UAA's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UAA and WHR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UAA (Under Armour, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
WHR (Whirlpool Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
UAAUAA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WHRWHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
WHRWHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
UAAUAA on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
UAAUAA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
WHRWHR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UAA, analyst targets favor WHR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UAA | WHR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +35.1% | +48.7% | WHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +95.1% | +83.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UAA | 44 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | WHRon balance | revenue growth -6.3% vs 7.5%; EPS growth 101.3% vs 180.4%; TTM ROE -32.1% vs 5.8%; gross margin 47% vs 13.5% — WHR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WHR | Value 42 vs 62 |
| Technicals | UAA | Price vs 50-day -5.6% vs -23.7%; vs 200-day -18.4% vs -44.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 43 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WHR | Target upside 35.1% vs 48.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UAA and WHR 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 9 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 UAA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UAA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UAA +9
- 44 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- UAA +10
- 45 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- UAA +2
- 36 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- WHR +7
- 35 vs 42
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when UAA moved ahead of WHR.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WHR
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
UAA 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 down over the latest session (price -4.3%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.39%, 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.
- 1WHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAA's edge.
- 2WHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UAA'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
WHR leads on balance| Metric | UAA | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.3% | 7.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 101.3% | 180.4% |
| Gross margin | 47% | 13.5% |
| Operating margin | 0.3% | 3.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -32.1% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.96 | 2.05 |
Performance
UAA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | UAA | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3% | -16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -32.8% | -24.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.5% | -50.7% |
| Year to date | -1.8% | -61.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.5% | -61.2% |
Technicals
UAA has the stronger structure| Metric | UAA | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 68.8 | 32.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.3 | 48.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.6% | -23.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.4% | -44.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.9% | 39.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | UAA | WHR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.33 | 1.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | -1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | -2.54 |
| Max drawdown | -47.5% | -71.5% |
| Current drawdown | -40% | -69.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.2% | 49.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UAA or WHR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UAA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against WHR's 35. The edge comes from momentum and quality. WHR is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 UAA or WHR the better buy right now?
UAA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UAA over WHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UAA leads Momentum by 29 points; UAA leads Quality by 25 points; WHR leads Value by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UAA or WHR?
Analyst price targets imply +35.1% upside for UAA and +48.7% for WHR, so the Street currently favors WHR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UAA. 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, UAA or WHR?
WHR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, UAA or WHR?
WHR 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, UAA or WHR?
UAA on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, UAA or WHR?
UAA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UAA carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is UAA more profitable than WHR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 47% vs 13.5%; operating margin 0.3% vs 3.6%; ttm roe -32.1% vs 5.8%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 UAA's lead over WHR getting stronger or weaker?
UAA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 9 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 2026-09-01, when UAA moved ahead of WHR.
What would change the UAA vs WHR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WHR closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAA's edge; WHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UAA'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 UAA and WHR?
UAA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WHR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 UAA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WHR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare UAA and WHR 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.