VFC vs WSM Stock Comparison
Compare VFC and WSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between VFC and WSM?
WSM leads the current stock comparison as Williams-Sonoma, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
V.F. Corporation vs Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
WSM leads
WSM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors VFC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WSM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
V.F. Corporation
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WSM over VFC, 48 versus 42 as of Sep 6, 2026. WSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while VFC holds the stronger value profile. WSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors VFC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare V.F. Corporation and Williams-Sonoma, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare VFC and WSM 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.
- Quality30%41 vs 81WSM +40
- Value30%48 vs 30VFC +18
- Momentum25%27 vs 27Even
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 54Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WSM. WSM’s edge is concentrated in quality; VFC keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
WSM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — VFC and WSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WSM (Williams-Sonoma, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
VFC (V.F. Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 27.8% against 21.6%.
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
WSMWSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
WSMWSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VFCVFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WSMWSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
VFCVFC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WSM, analyst targets favor VFC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | VFC | WSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46.2% | +2.6% | VFC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.7% | +38.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 13 | 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 WSM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WSM | 42 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | WSMon balance | revenue growth -22.9% vs 8.5%; EPS growth 16.7% vs 47.2%; TTM ROE 15.9% vs 57.8%; gross margin 54.6% vs 47.2%; operating margin 6.1% vs 19.2% — WSM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | VFC | Value 48 vs 30 |
| Technicals | WSM | Price vs 50-day -12.9% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day -23.5% vs 11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 54 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | VFC | Target upside 46.2% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of VFC and WSM 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 WSM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5WSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WSM +6
- 42 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- WSM +5
- 41 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- WSM +17
- 40 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- WSM +15
- 41 vs 56
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on May 6 when WSM moved ahead of VFC.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.93%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.90%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WSM 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 +2.36%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.09%, 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 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSM's edge.
- 2VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate WSM's advantage entirely.
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
WSM leads on balance| Metric | VFC | WSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -22.9% | 8.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 47.2% |
| Gross margin | 54.6% | 47.2% |
| Operating margin | 6.1% | 19.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.9% | 57.8% |
| Debt to equity | 2.81 | 0.71 |
Performance
WSM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | VFC | WSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.3% | -9.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.9% | 10.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.3% | 21.9% |
| Year to date | -25.6% | 27.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -9.2% | 18.4% |
Technicals
WSM has the stronger structure| Metric | VFC | WSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.9 | 33.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.9% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.5% | 11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 27.8% | 21.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | VFC | WSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.66 | 1.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.07 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -39.3% | -23.6% |
| Current drawdown | -37.6% | -9.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 49% | 33.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, VFC or WSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WSM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 48 against VFC's 42. The edge comes from quality. 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 VFC or WSM the better buy right now?
WSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 WSM over VFC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. WSM leads Quality by 40 points; VFC leads Value by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, VFC or WSM?
Analyst price targets imply +46.2% upside for VFC and +2.6% for WSM, so the Street currently favors VFC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WSM. 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, VFC or WSM?
VFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VFC 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, VFC or WSM?
WSM 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, VFC or WSM?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, VFC or WSM?
WSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WSM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is VFC more profitable than WSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.6% vs 47.2%; operating margin 6.1% vs 19.2%; ttm roe 15.9% vs 57.8%. VFC leads on one measure and WSM on two measures, 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 WSM's lead over VFC getting stronger or weaker?
WSM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-06, when WSM moved ahead of VFC.
What would change the VFC vs WSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: VFC closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSM's edge; VFC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WSM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate WSM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about VFC and WSM?
VFC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. WSM: 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 VFC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare VFC and WSM 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.