V vs VUG Stock Comparison
Visa Inc. vs Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
V leads
V leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support V, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Visa Inc.
Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors V over VUG, 63 versus 58 as of Sep 2, 2026. V's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while VUG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. V also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor V today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. V lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Visa Inc. and Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%78 vs 59V +19
- Quality30%90 vs 76V +14
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 75VUG +12
- Value30%25 vs 30VUG +5
2 of 4 evidence groups favor V. V’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; VUG keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Value +1
No new signals fired.
V's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — V and VUG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
V (Visa Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
VUG (Vanguard Morningstar Growth ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
VV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
VUGVUG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
VV on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
VUGVUG on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | V | VUG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +26.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor V. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | V | 63 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | VUG | Value 25 vs 30 |
| Technicals | V | Price vs 50-day 5.4% vs 1.3%; vs 200-day 13.9% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | VUG | Risk Resilience 63 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of V and VUG 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 V.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1V lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- V +5
- 63 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- V +7
- 64 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 60 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- V +13
- 63 vs 50
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when V moved ahead of VUG.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
VUG is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.68%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.35%, 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.
- 1VUG closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to V's edge.
- 2VUG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3V's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | V | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.6% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | — |
| Gross margin | 80.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 60.7% | — |
| Return on equity | 61.3% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | — |
Technicals
V has the stronger structure| Metric | V | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 47.6 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.4% | 1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.9% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19.1% | 13.7% |
Risk
VUG is the more resilient| Metric | V | VUG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 1.33 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -17.4% | -16.7% |
| Current drawdown | -1.2% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.2% | 17.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.8% | -1.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, V or VUG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, V is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 63 against VUG's 58. The edge comes from momentum and quality. VUG 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 V or VUG the better buy right now?
V carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor V over VUG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. V leads Momentum by 19 points; V leads Quality by 14 points; VUG leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, V or VUG?
Analyst price targets imply +8% upside for V and not covered for VUG. 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, V or VUG?
VUG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VUG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, V or VUG?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, V or VUG?
V on the Momentum factor, by 19 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, V or VUG?
VUG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VUG on Risk Resilience, by 12 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is V more profitable than VUG?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is V's lead over VUG getting stronger or weaker?
V lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when V moved ahead of VUG.
What would change the V vs VUG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VUG closes the Momentum gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to V's edge; VUG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; v's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about V and VUG?
V: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. VUG: 4 bullish / 1 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 V is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VUG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare V and VUG with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.