ACHR vs RKLB Stock Comparison
Compare ACHR and RKLB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ACHR and RKLB?
RKLB leads the current stock comparison as Rocket Lab USA, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Archer Aviation Inc. vs Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
RKLB leads
RKLB leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors ACHR on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RKLB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Archer Aviation Inc.
Rocket Lab USA, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RKLB over ACHR, 36 versus 32 as of Sep 11, 2026. RKLB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. RKLB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ACHR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RKLB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. RKLB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Archer Aviation Inc. and Rocket Lab USA, 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 ACHR and RKLB 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.
- Quality29 vs 46RKLB +17
- Risk Resilience39 vs 43RKLB +4
- Momentum27 vs 24Even
- Value34 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RKLB. RKLB’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 -11
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
RKLB's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACHR and RKLB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RKLB (Rocket Lab USA, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ACHR (Archer Aviation Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 61% against 40.7%.
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
RKLBRKLB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACHRACHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
RKLBRKLB on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ACHRACHR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RKLB, analyst targets favor ACHR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACHR | RKLB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +124% | +75.9% | ACHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72% | +47% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 9 | 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 RKLB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RKLB | 32 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | RKLBon balance | revenue growth 212.5% vs 16.8%; EPS growth -21.4% vs -14.3%; TTM ROE -40.9% vs -7.6%; gross margin -23.2% vs 37.3%; operating margin -136.3% vs -29.1% — RKLB takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | ACHR | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs -13.8%; vs 200-day -15.1% vs -22.2% |
| Risk Resilience | RKLB | Risk Resilience 39 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | ACHR | Target upside 124% vs 75.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACHR and RKLB 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 3 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)
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 RKLB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RKLB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RKLB +4
- 32 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- RKLB +1
- 35 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- RKLB +2
- 43 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- RKLB +5
- 33 vs 38
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when RKLB moved ahead of ACHR.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.24%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
RKLB 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.39%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.6%, 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.
- 1ACHR closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to RKLB's edge.
- 2ACHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RKLB'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
RKLB leads on balance| Metric | ACHR | RKLB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 212.5% | 16.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -21.4% | -14.3% |
| Gross margin | -23.2% | 37.3% |
| Operating margin | -136.3% | -29.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -40.9% | -7.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 0.04 |
Performance
RKLB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ACHR | RKLB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.5% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -23.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | -41% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.2% | -13.9% |
| Year to date | -27.5% | -11.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -36% | 29.8% |
Technicals
ACHR has the stronger structure| Metric | ACHR | RKLB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.4 | 23 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 21.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | -13.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.1% | -22.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61% | 40.7% |
Risk
RKLB is the more resilient| Metric | ACHR | RKLB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.96 | 3.65 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.28 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.55 | 1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -67.5% | -61% |
| Current drawdown | -60% | -58.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.1% | 95.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.1% | -9.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACHR or RKLB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RKLB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 36 against ACHR's 32. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 ACHR or RKLB the better buy right now?
RKLB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 RKLB over ACHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RKLB leads Quality by 17 points; RKLB leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACHR or RKLB?
Analyst price targets imply +124% upside for ACHR and +75.9% for RKLB, so the Street currently favors ACHR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RKLB. 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, ACHR or RKLB?
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, ACHR or RKLB?
ACHR 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, ACHR or RKLB?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ACHR or RKLB?
RKLB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RKLB on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ACHR more profitable than RKLB?
RKLB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -23.2% vs 37.3%; operating margin -136.3% vs -29.1%; ttm roe -40.9% vs -7.6%.
Is RKLB's lead over ACHR getting stronger or weaker?
RKLB 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when RKLB moved ahead of ACHR.
What would change the ACHR vs RKLB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ACHR closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to RKLB's edge; ACHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RKLB'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 ACHR and RKLB?
ACHR: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. RKLB: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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 ACHR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RKLB it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ACHR and RKLB 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.