ULTA vs URBN Stock Comparison
ULTA currently leads URBN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 65. The clearest difference is quality, while URBN has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ULTA and URBN?
ULTA leads the current stock comparison as Ulta Beauty, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ulta Beauty, Inc. vs Urban Outfitters, Inc.
ULTA leads
ULTA leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ULTA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ulta Beauty, Inc.
Urban Outfitters, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ULTA over URBN, 66 versus 65 as of Oct 21, 2026. ULTA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while URBN holds the stronger value profile. ULTA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ULTA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ULTA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ulta Beauty, Inc. and Urban Outfitters, 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 ULTA and URBN 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.
- Value40 vs 58URBN +18
- Quality73 vs 61ULTA +12
- Momentum93 vs 81ULTA +12
- Risk Resilience60 vs 62Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ULTA. ULTA’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; URBN 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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
ULTA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ULTA and URBN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ULTA (Ulta Beauty, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
URBN (Urban Outfitters, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
ULTAULTA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
URBNURBN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
URBNURBN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
ULTAULTA on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
URBNURBN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ULTAULTA 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 | ULTA | URBN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +0.3% | ULTA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +32.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ULTA. 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 | 66 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | ULTAon balance | revenue growth -4.1% vs 12.2%; EPS growth -15.6% vs 112.9%; TTM ROE 45.4% vs 20.7%; gross margin 39.3% vs 37.5%; operating margin 12.6% vs 11.3% — ULTA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | URBN | Value 40 vs 58 |
| Technicals | URBN | Price vs 50-day 10.9% vs 10.4%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs 20.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | ULTA | Target upside 5% vs 0.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ULTA and URBN 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ULTA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ULTA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ULTA +1
- 66 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- ULTA +2
- 67 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- ULTA +1
- 56 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- URBN +6
- 53 vs 59
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when ULTA moved ahead of URBN.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ULTA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.22%)
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only URBN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.47%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ULTA 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 +0.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.41%, 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.
- 1URBN closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to ULTA's edge.
- 2URBN's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ULTA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ULTA leads on balance| Metric | ULTA | URBN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.1% | 12.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.6% | 112.9% |
| Gross margin | 39.3% | 37.5% |
| Operating margin | 12.6% | 11.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 45.4% | 20.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 0.43 |
Performance
URBN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ULTA | URBN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.9% | 16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.7% | 18.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.7% | 16.9% |
| Year to date | -0.3% | 14.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.2% | 29.3% |
Technicals
URBN has the stronger structure| Metric | ULTA | URBN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.6 | 82.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 33 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.9% | 10.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | 20.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.1% | 21.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ULTA | URBN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 0.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 0.75 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.58 | 1.29 |
| Max drawdown | -36.2% | -26.3% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.2% | 42.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ULTA or URBN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ULTA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against URBN's 65. The edge comes from quality and momentum. URBN 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 ULTA or URBN the better buy right now?
ULTA 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ULTA over URBN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. URBN leads Value by 18 points; ULTA leads Quality by 12 points; ULTA leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ULTA or URBN?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for ULTA and +0.3% for URBN, so the Street currently favors ULTA. 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, ULTA or URBN?
URBN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. URBN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, ULTA or URBN?
URBN 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, ULTA or URBN?
ULTA 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, ULTA or URBN?
URBN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. URBN 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 ULTA more profitable than URBN?
ULTA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.3% vs 37.5%; operating margin 12.6% vs 11.3%; ttm roe 45.4% vs 20.7%.
Is ULTA's lead over URBN getting stronger or weaker?
ULTA 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-17, when ULTA moved ahead of URBN.
What would change the ULTA vs URBN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: URBN closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to ULTA's edge; URBN's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ULTA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 ULTA and URBN?
ULTA: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. URBN: 6 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 ULTA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On URBN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ULTA and URBN 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.