YMM vs YUMC Stock Comparison
Compare YMM and YUMC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between YMM and YUMC?
YMM leads the current stock comparison as Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. vs Yum China Holdings, Inc.
YMM leads
YMM leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support YMM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YMM over YUMC, 58 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. YMM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. YMM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YMM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. YMM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 16 points over 30 sessions. YMM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd. and Yum China Holdings, 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 YMM and YUMC 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.
- Quality70 vs 49YMM +21
- Value67 vs 51YMM +16
- Risk Resilience60 vs 45YMM +15
- Momentum32 vs 23YMM +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor YMM. YMM’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
YMM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — YMM and YUMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
YMM (Full Truck Alliance Co. Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
YUMC (Yum China Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
YMMYMM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
YMMYMM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
YMMYMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
YMMYMM on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
YMMYMM on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | YMM | YUMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.7% | +39.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +29.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YMM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YMM | 58 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | YMMon balance | revenue growth 18.4% vs -4.1%; EPS growth 8.2% vs -20.5%; TTM ROE 10.6% vs 17.8%; gross margin 65.9% vs 17.2%; operating margin 33.6% vs 12.2% — YMM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | YMM | Value 67 vs 51 |
| Technicals | YUMC | Price vs 50-day -8.5% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day -12.4% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | YMM | Risk Resilience 60 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 39.7% vs 39.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of YMM and YUMC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 YMM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10YMM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YMM +16
- 58 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- YMM +16
- 59 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- YMM +3
- 56 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- YMM +14
- 59 vs 45
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.98%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.48%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
YMM 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 +0.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.07%, 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.
- 1YUMC closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge.
- 2YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3YMM'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
YMM leads on balance| Metric | YMM | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.4% | -4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.2% | -20.5% |
| Gross margin | 65.9% | 17.2% |
| Operating margin | 33.6% | 12.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.6% | 17.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.43 |
Performance
YUMC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | YMM | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.7% | -5.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.2% | -11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.4% | -3.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.8% | -19.2% |
| Year to date | -24.1% | -11.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.4% | -4.8% |
Technicals
YUMC has the stronger structure| Metric | YMM | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.6 | 14.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.1 | 28.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.5% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.4% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.3% | 26.3% |
Risk
YMM is the more resilient| Metric | YMM | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.26 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.23 | -0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.61 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -46.1% | -30.7% |
| Current drawdown | -41.9% | -27% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.5% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, YMM or YUMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, YMM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 58 against YUMC's 42. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 YMM or YUMC the better buy right now?
YMM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor YMM over YUMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. YMM leads Quality by 21 points; YMM leads Value by 16 points; YMM leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. YMM leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by YUMC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, YMM or YUMC?
Analyst price targets imply +39.7% upside for YMM and +39.4% for YUMC. 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, YMM or YUMC?
YMM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. YMM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, YMM or YUMC?
YMM 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, YMM or YUMC?
YMM on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, YMM or YUMC?
YMM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. YMM on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 YMM more profitable than YUMC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.9% vs 17.2%; operating margin 33.6% vs 12.2%; ttm roe 10.6% vs 17.8%. YMM leads on two measures and YUMC 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 YMM's lead over YUMC getting stronger or weaker?
YMM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the YMM vs YUMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: YUMC closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to YMM's edge; YUMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; YMM'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 YMM and YUMC?
YMM: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. YUMC: 1 bullish / 4 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 YMM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On YUMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare YMM and YUMC 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.