WING vs YUM Stock Comparison
Compare WING and YUM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between WING and YUM?
WING leads the current stock comparison as Wingstop Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Wingstop Inc. vs Yum! Brands, Inc.
WING leads
WING leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support WING, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Wingstop Inc.
Yum! Brands, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WING over YUM, 41 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. WING's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while YUM holds the stronger risk resilience profile. WING also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WING today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. WING lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Wingstop Inc. and Yum! Brands, 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 WING and YUM 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.
- Momentum40 vs 26WING +14
- Risk Resilience30 vs 42YUM +12
- Quality60 vs 51WING +9
- Value29 vs 31Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor WING. WING’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; YUM keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -13
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: WING moved ahead of YUM in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WING and YUM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WING (Wingstop Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
YUM (Yum! Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
WINGWING on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
YUMYUM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WINGWING on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
YUMYUM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
WINGWING 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 | WING | YUM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +90.3% | +24.7% | WING has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.3% | +9.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 5 | 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 WING. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WING | 41 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | YUMon balance | revenue growth 1% vs 5.3%; EPS growth 5.5% vs 98.7%; TTM ROE -15.5% vs -30.3%; gross margin 73.1% vs 45.8%; operating margin 28.7% vs 31% — YUM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 29 vs 31 |
| Technicals | YUM | Price vs 50-day -9.5% vs -7.6%; vs 200-day -41.4% vs -6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | YUM | Risk Resilience 30 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | WING | Target upside 90.3% vs 24.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WING and YUM 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 WING.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10WING lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WING +4
- 41 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- YUM +3
- 40 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- WING +4
- 42 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- YUM +5
- 49 vs 54
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when WING moved ahead of YUM.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (45.65%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.50%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
WING 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 +5.95%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.1%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1YUM closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to WING's edge.
- 2YUM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WING's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
YUM leads on balance| Metric | WING | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | 5.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 98.7% |
| Gross margin | 73.1% | 45.8% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 31% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -15.5% | -30.3% |
| Debt to equity | -1.65 | -1.73 |
Performance
YUM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | WING | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | -4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.1% | -4.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47% | -8.1% |
| Year to date | -53.7% | -4.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -63.7% | -2.1% |
Technicals
YUM has the stronger structure| Metric | WING | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.2 | 34.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 11.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.5% | -7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -41.4% | -6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.8% | 28.1% |
Risk
YUM is the more resilient| Metric | WING | YUM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.94 | 0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.35 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.36 | -0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -62% | -14.4% |
| Current drawdown | -61.5% | -14.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.5% | 24% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WING or YUM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WING is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 41 against YUM's 37. The edge comes from momentum and quality. YUM 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 WING or YUM the better buy right now?
WING carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WING over YUM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WING leads Momentum by 14 points; YUM leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; WING leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WING or YUM?
Analyst price targets imply +90.3% upside for WING and +24.7% for YUM, so the Street currently favors WING. 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, WING or YUM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, WING or YUM?
YUM 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, WING or YUM?
WING 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, WING or YUM?
YUM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. YUM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 WING more profitable than YUM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.1% vs 45.8%; operating margin 28.7% vs 31%; ttm roe -15.5% vs -30.3%. WING leads on two measures and YUM 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 WING's lead over YUM getting stronger or weaker?
WING lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when WING moved ahead of YUM.
What would change the WING vs YUM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: YUM closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to WING's edge; YUM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WING's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 WING and YUM?
WING: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. YUM: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 WING is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On YUM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare WING and YUM 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.