AAPL vs CLF Stock Comparison
AAPL currently leads CLF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while CLF has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AAPL and CLF?
AAPL leads the current stock comparison as Apple Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Apple Inc. vs Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
AAPL leads
AAPL leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support AAPL, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Apple Inc.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AAPL over CLF, 62 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. AAPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger value profile. AAPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AAPL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Apple Inc. and Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AAPL 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.
- Quality80 vs 11AAPL +69
- Risk Resilience69 vs 27AAPL +42
- Value38 vs 65CLF +27
- Momentum65 vs 72CLF +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor AAPL. AAPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLF keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
AAPL's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AAPL and CLF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AAPL (Apple Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 82.5% against 13.6%.
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
AAPLAAPL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLFCLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
AAPLAAPL on Risk Resilience, by 42 points.
Analyst upside
AAPLAAPL 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 | AAPL | CLF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | -9.2% | AAPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +45.7% | +65.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 7 | 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 AAPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AAPL | 62 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | AAPLon balance | revenue growth -1.6% vs 7.4%; TTM ROE 137.2% vs -8.1%; gross margin 48.7% vs 1.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs -1% — AAPL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLF | Value 38 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 3.9% vs 16.3%; vs 200-day 16.3% vs 22.7% |
| Risk Resilience | AAPL | Risk Resilience 69 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | AAPL | Target upside -1.7% vs -9.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AAPL and CLF 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 17 points. (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)
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 AAPL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AAPL +17
- 62 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- AAPL +21
- 65 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- AAPL +20
- 60 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- AAPL +21
- 61 vs 40
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AAPL
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.3%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.25%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
AAPL 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 down over the latest session (price -1.23%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 69 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge.
- 2CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate AAPL'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
AAPL leads on balance| Metric | AAPL | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.6% | 7.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1% | 208% |
| Gross margin | 48.7% | 1.9% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | -1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 137.2% | -8.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 1.34 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AAPL | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.2% | 26.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.1% | 19.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.3% | 36% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 30.8% | 6.2% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | AAPL | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.7 | 61.9 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 21.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.9% | 16.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.3% | 22.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 13.6% | 82.5% |
Risk
AAPL is the more resilient| Metric | AAPL | CLF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.56 | 2.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.32 | 0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -13.8% | -48.2% |
| Current drawdown | -1.3% | -7.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 24% | 66.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AAPL or CLF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AAPL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 62 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLF 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 AAPL or CLF the better buy right now?
AAPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 AAPL over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AAPL leads Quality by 69 points; AAPL leads Risk Resilience by 42 points; CLF leads Value by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AAPL or CLF?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for AAPL and -9.2% for CLF, so the Street currently favors AAPL. 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, AAPL or CLF?
CLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, AAPL 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, AAPL or CLF?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, AAPL or CLF?
AAPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AAPL on Risk Resilience, by 42 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 AAPL more profitable than CLF?
AAPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.7% vs 1.9%; operating margin 33.2% vs -1%; ttm roe 137.2% vs -8.1%.
Is AAPL's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
AAPL lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AAPL 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 69 points behind, the largest single contributor to AAPL's edge; CLF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AAPL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate AAPL's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AAPL and CLF?
AAPL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CLF: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 AAPL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CLF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AAPL 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.