ADSK vs CFLT Stock Comparison
ADSK currently leads CFLT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 52. The clearest difference is quality, while CFLT has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ADSK and CFLT?
ADSK leads the current stock comparison as Autodesk, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Autodesk, Inc. vs Confluent, Inc.
ADSK leads
ADSK leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ADSK, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Autodesk, Inc.
Confluent, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ADSK over CFLT, 71 versus 52 as of Oct 21, 2026. ADSK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CFLT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ADSK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ADSK today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. ADSK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Autodesk, Inc. and Confluent, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ADSK and CFLT 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.
- Risk Resilience47 vs 86CFLT +39
- Quality84 vs 46ADSK +38
- Value57 vs 40ADSK +17
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ADSK. ADSK’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CFLT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
ADSK's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ADSK and CFLT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ADSK (Autodesk, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CFLT (Confluent, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
ADSKADSK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ADSKADSK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ADSKADSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CFLTCFLT on Risk Resilience, by 39 points.
Analyst upside
ADSKADSK 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 | ADSK | CFLT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23% | +0% | ADSK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +51.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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 ADSK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ADSK | 71 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | ADSK | revenue growth 5.8% vs 5.5%; TTM ROE 52.5% vs -27%; gross margin 91.2% vs 74.3%; operating margin 27.5% vs -30.9% |
| Valuation | ADSK | Value 57 vs 40 |
| Technicals | CFLT | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs 1.4%; vs 200-day 4.4% vs 24.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CFLT | Risk Resilience 47 vs 86 |
| Analyst expectations | ADSK | Target upside 23% vs 0% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ADSK and CFLT 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ADSK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ADSK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ADSK +19
- 71 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- ADSK +20
- 72 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- ADSK +5
- 57 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- ADSK +12
- 64 vs 52
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when CFLT moved ahead of ADSK.
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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ADSK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.99%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
ADSK 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 -0.3%, 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.
- 1CFLT closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADSK's edge.
- 2CFLT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3ADSK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
ADSK leads on balance| Metric | ADSK | CFLT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.8% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -21.1% |
| Gross margin | 91.2% | 74.3% |
| Operating margin | 27.5% | -30.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 52.5% | -27% |
| Debt to equity | 1.1 | 0.95 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ADSK | CFLT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.6% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.8% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.9% | 2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0% | 59.3% |
| Year to date | -17% | 2.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -18.1% | 18.6% |
Technicals
CFLT has the stronger structure| Metric | ADSK | CFLT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.4 | 79.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 35.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | 1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.4% | 24.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 4.3% |
Risk
CFLT is the more resilient| Metric | ADSK | CFLT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 0.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.45 | 1.96 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | 5.13 |
| Max drawdown | -40% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.1% | 50.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ADSK or CFLT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ADSK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against CFLT's 52. The edge comes from quality and value. CFLT 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 ADSK or CFLT the better buy right now?
ADSK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ADSK over CFLT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CFLT leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; ADSK leads Quality by 38 points; ADSK leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ADSK or CFLT?
Analyst price targets imply +23% upside for ADSK and +0% for CFLT, so the Street currently favors ADSK. 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, ADSK or CFLT?
ADSK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ADSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, ADSK or CFLT?
ADSK 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, ADSK or CFLT?
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, ADSK or CFLT?
CFLT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CFLT on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 ADSK more profitable than CFLT?
ADSK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 91.2% vs 74.3%; operating margin 27.5% vs -30.9%; ttm roe 52.5% vs -27%.
Is ADSK's lead over CFLT getting stronger or weaker?
ADSK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when CFLT moved ahead of ADSK.
What would change the ADSK vs CFLT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CFLT closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to ADSK's edge; CFLT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; ADSK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 ADSK and CFLT?
ADSK: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. CFLT: No active signals. 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 ADSK is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ADSK and CFLT 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.