ULTA vs VFC Stock Comparison
ULTA currently leads VFC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 55. The clearest difference is quality, while VFC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between ULTA and VFC?
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 V.F. Corporation
ULTA leads
ULTA leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors VFC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ULTA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ulta Beauty, Inc.
V.F. Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ULTA over VFC, 66 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. ULTA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while VFC holds the stronger value profile. ULTA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VFC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ULTA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ULTA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ulta Beauty, 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 ULTA 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.
- Quality73 vs 41ULTA +32
- Momentum93 vs 79ULTA +14
- Value40 vs 48VFC +8
- Risk Resilience60 vs 55ULTA +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ULTA. ULTA’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; VFC 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
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.
ULTA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ULTA and VFC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ULTA (Ulta Beauty, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
VFC (V.F. Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
ULTAULTA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
VFCVFC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VFCVFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
ULTAULTA on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
ULTAULTA on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
VFCVFC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ULTA, analyst targets favor VFC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ULTA | VFC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | +9% | VFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33% | +53.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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
3 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 | ULTA | 66 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ULTAon balance | revenue growth -4.1% vs -22.9%; EPS growth -15.6% vs 16.7%; TTM ROE 45.4% vs 15.9%; gross margin 39.3% vs 54.6%; operating margin 12.6% vs 6.1% — ULTA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | VFC | Value 40 vs 48 |
| Technicals | VFC | Price vs 50-day 10.9% vs 20.5%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs 2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ULTA | Risk Resilience 60 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | VFC | Target upside 5% vs 9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ULTA 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 11 points.
- Only 3 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)
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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ULTA +11
- 66 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- ULTA +14
- 67 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ULTA +3
- 56 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- ULTA +14
- 53 vs 39
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ULTA
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only VFC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, 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 -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.
- 1VFC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to ULTA's edge.
- 2VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.1% | -22.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.6% | 16.7% |
| Gross margin | 39.3% | 54.6% |
| Operating margin | 12.6% | 6.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 45.4% | 15.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 2.81 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ULTA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.9% | 28.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 24.7% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.7% | -18.8% |
| Year to date | -0.3% | -3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.2% | 23.2% |
Technicals
VFC has the stronger structure| Metric | ULTA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.6 | 91.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 43.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.9% | 20.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | 2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.1% | 29.9% |
Risk
ULTA is the more resilient| Metric | ULTA | VFC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 1.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.58 | 0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -36.2% | -41.4% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -19% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.2% | 48.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ULTA or VFC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ULTA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against VFC's 55. The edge comes from quality and momentum. VFC 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 VFC the better buy right now?
ULTA 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ULTA over VFC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ULTA leads Quality by 32 points; ULTA leads Momentum by 14 points; VFC leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ULTA or VFC?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for ULTA and +9% for VFC, so the Street currently favors VFC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ULTA. 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, ULTA or VFC?
VFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 VFC?
VFC 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 VFC?
ULTA on the Momentum factor, by 14 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 VFC?
ULTA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ULTA on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ULTA more profitable than VFC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39.3% vs 54.6%; operating margin 12.6% vs 6.1%; ttm roe 45.4% vs 15.9%. ULTA leads on two measures and VFC 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 ULTA's lead over VFC getting stronger or weaker?
ULTA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 11 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 ULTA vs VFC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VFC closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to ULTA's edge; VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 VFC?
ULTA: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 ULTA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On VFC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ULTA 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.