APP vs WULF Stock Comparison
Compare APP and WULF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between APP and WULF?
APP leads the current stock comparison as AppLovin Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AppLovin Corporation vs TeraWulf Inc.
APP leads
APP leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support APP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AppLovin Corporation
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APP over WULF, 60 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. APP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. APP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. APP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 29 points over 30 sessions. APP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare AppLovin Corporation and TeraWulf 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 APP and WULF 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.
- Quality83 vs 30APP +53
- Risk Resilience36 vs 13APP +23
- Momentum61 vs 41APP +20
- Value47 vs 34APP +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor APP. APP’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 +6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
APP's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APP and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APP (AppLovin Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 87.5% against 39.6%.
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
APPAPP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APPAPP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APPAPP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
APPAPP on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
APPAPP on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
WULFWULF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors APP, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | APP | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +74.2% | +130.7% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +83.8% | +121.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 10 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APP | 60 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | APPon balance | revenue growth 4.4% vs 31.6%; EPS growth 5.6% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE 193.1% vs -17.1%; gross margin 88.5% vs 69.3%; operating margin 77.4% vs -228.5% — APP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | APP | Value 47 vs 34 |
| Technicals | WULF | Price vs 50-day -15.3% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day -34.9% vs -10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | APP | Risk Resilience 36 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside 74.2% vs 130.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APP and WULF 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 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 APP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10APP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APP +29
- 60 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- APP +30
- 60 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- APP +21
- 48 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- APP +35
- 62 vs 27
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (26.26%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
APP 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 up over the latest session (price +3.01%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.72%, 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.
- 1WULF closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to APP's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3APP'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
APP leads on balance| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.4% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.6% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 88.5% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 77.4% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 193.1% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.11 | 35.56 |
Performance
WULF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -36.2% | -30.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.8% | 6% |
| Year to date | -53.3% | 40.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -39.9% | 75.4% |
Technicals
WULF has the stronger structure| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.4 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 26 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.3% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -34.9% | -10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.6% | 87.5% |
Risk
APP is the more resilient| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.09 | 3.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.46 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.57 | 1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -59.3% | -49.5% |
| Current drawdown | -57.1% | -44.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.2% | 91.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.6% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APP or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against WULF's 31. 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 APP or WULF the better buy right now?
APP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 APP over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. APP leads Quality by 53 points; APP leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; APP leads Momentum by 20 points. APP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WULF simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, APP or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply +74.2% upside for APP and +130.7% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors APP. 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, APP or WULF?
APP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. APP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, APP or WULF?
APP 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, APP or WULF?
APP on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, APP or WULF?
APP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APP on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 APP more profitable than WULF?
APP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 88.5% vs 69.3%; operating margin 77.4% vs -228.5%; ttm roe 193.1% vs -17.1%.
Is APP's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
APP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 29 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 APP vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to APP's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; APP'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 APP and WULF?
APP: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WULF: 1 bullish / 2 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 APP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare APP and WULF 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.