AA vs CLF Stock Comparison
Compare AA and CLF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AA and CLF?
AA leads the current stock comparison as Alcoa Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alcoa Corporation vs Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
AA leads
AA leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AA, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alcoa Corporation
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AA over CLF, 52 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. AA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger momentum profile. AA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alcoa Corporation and Cleveland-Cliffs 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 AA and CLF 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.
- Quality53 vs 9AA +44
- Momentum36 vs 76CLF +40
- Risk Resilience40 vs 27AA +13
- Value71 vs 65AA +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AA. AA’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLF keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -17
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
AA's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AA and CLF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AA (Alcoa Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
AAAA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AAAA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
AAAA on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
AAAA 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 | AA | CLF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46% | -1.7% | AA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.3% | +55.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AA | 52 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | AAon balance | revenue growth 24.2% vs 6.2%; EPS growth -4.3% vs 40.5%; TTM ROE 19.2% vs -15.2%; operating margin 8% vs -3.6% — AA takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AA | Value 71 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day -0.6% vs 8.1%; vs 200-day -16.5% vs 3.5% |
| Risk Resilience | AA | Risk Resilience 40 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | AA | Target upside 46% vs -1.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AA and CLF 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 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 AA.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AA +7
- 52 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- AA +14
- 56 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- AA +23
- 59 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- AA +14
- 46 vs 32
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (19.19%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.46%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
AA 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 -0.08%, AIQ -5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.94%, 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.
- 1CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to AA's edge.
- 2CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate AA'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
AA leads on balance| Metric | AA | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.2% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.3% | 40.5% |
| Gross margin | 18.8% | -0.6% |
| Operating margin | 8% | -3.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.2% | -15.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.3 | 1.37 |
Performance
CLF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AA | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -4.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.3% | -4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.2% | 27.5% |
| Year to date | -9.1% | -10.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 50.7% | 7.4% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | AA | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.5 | 66.6 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 18.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.6% | 8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.5% | 3.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 50.2% |
Risk
AA is the more resilient| Metric | AA | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.71 | 2.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.68 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -48.8% | -51.7% |
| Current drawdown | -42.4% | -26.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.3% | 69.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AA or CLF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLF is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 AA or CLF the better buy right now?
AA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AA over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AA leads Quality by 44 points; CLF leads Momentum by 40 points; AA leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AA or CLF?
Analyst price targets imply +46% upside for AA and -1.7% for CLF, so the Street currently favors AA. 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, AA or CLF?
AA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, AA or CLF?
CLF 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, AA or CLF?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 40 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, AA or CLF?
AA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AA on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 AA more profitable than CLF?
AA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.8% vs -0.6%; operating margin 8% vs -3.6%; ttm roe 19.2% vs -15.2%.
Is AA's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
AA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 7 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 AA vs CLF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to AA's edge; CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate AA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AA and CLF?
AA: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CLF: 2 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 AA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CLF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AA and CLF 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.