UAL vs WAB Stock Comparison
UAL currently leads WAB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 48. The clearest difference is value, while WAB has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between UAL and WAB?
UAL leads the current stock comparison as United Airlines Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
United Airlines Holdings, Inc. vs Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation
UAL leads
UAL leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support UAL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
United Airlines Holdings, Inc.
Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UAL over WAB, 49 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. UAL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WAB holds the stronger risk resilience profile. UAL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. UAL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare United Airlines Holdings, Inc. and Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies 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 UAL and WAB 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.
- Value72 vs 43UAL +29
- Risk Resilience41 vs 66WAB +25
- Momentum21 vs 42WAB +21
- Quality52 vs 48UAL +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor UAL. UAL’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WAB 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
UAL's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UAL and WAB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UAL (United Airlines Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WAB (Westinghouse Air Brake Technologies Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals.
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
UALUAL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UALUAL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UALUAL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
WABWAB on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
WABWAB on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
UALUAL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | UAL | WAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.9% | +16.5% | UAL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +11% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UAL. 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 | 49 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | UALon balance | revenue growth 21% vs 7.8%; EPS growth 15% vs 9.9%; TTM ROE 22.5% vs 11.4%; gross margin 65.1% vs 34.3%; operating margin 7.7% vs 16.5% — UAL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UAL | Value 72 vs 43 |
| Technicals | WAB | Price vs 50-day -8.1% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day -9.9% vs 6.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WAB | Risk Resilience 41 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | UAL | Target upside 54.9% vs 16.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UAL and WAB 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 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 UAL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UAL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UAL +1
- 49 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- UAL +2
- 59 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- UAL +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when UAL moved ahead of WAB.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only UAL
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.34%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
UAL 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 up over the latest session (price +3.99%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.95%, 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.
- 1WAB closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAL's edge.
- 2WAB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3UAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
UAL leads on balance| Metric | UAL | WAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 21% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15% | 9.9% |
| Gross margin | 65.1% | 34.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.7% | 16.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.5% | 11.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.02 | 0.62 |
Performance
WAB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | UAL | WAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.1% | -2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.6% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.7% | 10% |
| Year to date | -12.6% | 32.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.4% | 46.4% |
Technicals
WAB has the stronger structure| Metric | UAL | WAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.4 | 43.2 |
| ADX (14) | 23.1 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.1% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.9% | 6.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.1% | 17.1% |
Risk
WAB is the more resilient| Metric | UAL | WAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.2 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | 1.44 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.25 | 2.46 |
| Max drawdown | -29.8% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -28.2% | -7.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.2% | 25.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UAL or WAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UAL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against WAB's 48. The edge comes from value and quality. WAB 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 UAL or WAB the better buy right now?
UAL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 UAL over WAB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UAL leads Value by 29 points; WAB leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; WAB leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UAL or WAB?
Analyst price targets imply +54.9% upside for UAL and +16.5% for WAB, so the Street currently favors UAL. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, UAL or WAB?
UAL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UAL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, UAL or WAB?
UAL 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, UAL or WAB?
WAB 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, UAL or WAB?
WAB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WAB on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 UAL more profitable than WAB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.1% vs 34.3%; operating margin 7.7% vs 16.5%; ttm roe 22.5% vs 11.4%. UAL leads on two measures and WAB 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 UAL's lead over WAB getting stronger or weaker?
UAL 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 changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when UAL moved ahead of WAB.
What would change the UAL vs WAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WAB closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to UAL's edge; WAB's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; UAL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 UAL and WAB?
UAL: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WAB: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 UAL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WAB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UAL and WAB 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.