ALHC vs CLOV Stock Comparison
Alignment Healthcare, Inc. vs Clover Health Investments, Corp.
ALHC leads
ALHC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CLOV.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ALHC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alignment Healthcare, Inc.
Clover Health Investments, Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALHC over CLOV, 42 versus 41 as of Sep 5, 2026. ALHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. ALHC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALHC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ALHC lead: Reversed — CLOV led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ALHC now leads by 1.
Compare Alignment Healthcare, Inc. and Clover Health Investments, Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare ALHC and CLOV 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 Resilience15%51 vs 37ALHC +14
- Momentum25%44 vs 47Even
- Quality30%37 vs 38Even
- Value30%42 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ALHC. ALHC’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
No new signals fired.
ALHC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALHC and CLOV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALHC (Alignment Healthcare, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
CLOV (Clover Health Investments, Corp.): 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
ALHCALHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALHCALHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ALHCALHC on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
ALHCALHC 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 | ALHC | CLOV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +14.2% | ALHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +26.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 42 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | ALHCon balance | EPS growth 223.7% vs -4.6%; TTM ROE 20% vs -5.4%; gross margin 12.5% vs 18.6%; operating margin 1.2% vs -0.7% — ALHC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 42 |
| Technicals | CLOV | Price vs 50-day -21.4% vs -5.7%; vs 200-day -28.3% vs 35.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ALHC | Risk Resilience 51 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | ALHC | Target upside 44.8% vs 14.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALHC and CLOV 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ALHC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4ALHC lead: Reversed — CLOV led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ALHC now leads by 1.
- Today
- ALHC +1
- 42 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- ALHC +3
- 41 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CLOV +5
- 37 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- ALHC +3
- 51 vs 48
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when ALHC moved ahead of CLOV.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.62%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (43.75%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.45%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ALHC 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 -0.04%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1CLOV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALHC's edge.
- 2CLOV's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ALHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
ALHC leads on balance| Metric | ALHC | CLOV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | -0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 223.7% | -4.6% |
| Gross margin | 12.5% | 18.6% |
| Operating margin | 1.2% | -0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | -5.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.25 | 0 |
Performance
CLOV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ALHC | CLOV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | -10.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.9% | 11.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.6% | 112.8% |
| Year to date | -31.4% | 81.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17% | 60% |
Technicals
CLOV has the stronger structure| Metric | ALHC | CLOV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 48.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 10.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -21.4% | -5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -28.3% | 35.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 42.2% |
Risk
ALHC is the more resilient| Metric | ALHC | CLOV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 1.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | 0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.07 | 1.71 |
| Max drawdown | -48% | -55.5% |
| Current drawdown | -44.9% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.8% | 67.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALHC or CLOV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 42 against CLOV's 41. The edge comes from 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 ALHC or CLOV the better buy right now?
ALHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ALHC over CLOV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ALHC leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALHC or CLOV?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for ALHC and +14.2% for CLOV, so the Street currently favors ALHC. 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, ALHC or CLOV?
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, ALHC or CLOV?
ALHC 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, ALHC or CLOV?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, ALHC or CLOV?
ALHC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALHC on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ALHC more profitable than CLOV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12.5% vs 18.6%; operating margin 1.2% vs -0.7%; ttm roe 20% vs -5.4%. ALHC leads on two measures and CLOV 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 ALHC's lead over CLOV getting stronger or weaker?
ALHC lead: Reversed — CLOV led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ALHC now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when ALHC moved ahead of CLOV.
What would change the ALHC vs CLOV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLOV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALHC's edge; CLOV's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ALHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ALHC and CLOV?
ALHC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CLOV: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 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 ALHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CLOV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALHC and CLOV with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.