ARRY vs RUN Stock Comparison
Compare ARRY and RUN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ARRY and RUN?
ARRY leads the current stock comparison as Array Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Array Technologies, Inc. vs Sunrun Inc.
ARRY leads
ARRY leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors RUN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ARRY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Array Technologies, Inc.
Sunrun Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ARRY over RUN, 48 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. ARRY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. ARRY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RUN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ARRY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ARRY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Array Technologies, Inc. and Sunrun 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 ARRY and RUN 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.
- Quality41 vs 18ARRY +23
- Risk Resilience35 vs 18ARRY +17
- Momentum37 vs 32ARRY +5
- Value71 vs 73Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ARRY. ARRY’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 +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
ARRY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARRY and RUN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ARRY (Array Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
RUN (Sunrun Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.8% against 41.6%.
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
ARRYARRY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ARRYARRY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ARRYARRY on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
ARRYARRY on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
RUNRUN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ARRY, analyst targets favor RUN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARRY | RUN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +96.1% | +100.6% | RUN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.2% | +34.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 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 ARRY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ARRY | 48 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | ARRYon balance | revenue growth 53.1% vs 20.5%; EPS growth 156.5% vs -32.4%; TTM ROE -47% vs 2.5%; gross margin 24.3% vs 34.5%; operating margin 3.3% vs 2.7% — ARRY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 71 vs 73 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -14.5% vs -17.2%; vs 200-day -41.7% vs -39.9% |
| Risk Resilience | ARRY | Risk Resilience 35 vs 18 |
| Analyst expectations | RUN | Target upside 96.1% vs 100.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARRY and RUN 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 ARRY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ARRY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ARRY +10
- 48 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- ARRY +8
- 46 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- ARRY +5
- 47 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- ARRY +3
- 44 vs 41
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 (44.33%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (38.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
ARRY 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 +1.54%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.81%, 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.
- 1RUN closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARRY's edge.
- 2RUN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ARRY'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
ARRY leads on balance| Metric | ARRY | RUN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 53.1% | 20.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 156.5% | -32.4% |
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 34.5% |
| Operating margin | 3.3% | 2.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -47% | 2.5% |
| Debt to equity | -3.73 | 4.36 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ARRY | RUN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.3% | -12.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.4% | -27.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -35.4% | -31.7% |
| Year to date | -50.7% | -52.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48% | -49% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ARRY | RUN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.1 | 38.3 |
| ADX (14) | 20.2 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.5% | -17.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -41.7% | -39.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.6% | 55.8% |
Risk
ARRY is the more resilient| Metric | ARRY | RUN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.95 | 2.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.36 | -0.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.48 | -0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -63.5% | -60.9% |
| Current drawdown | -62% | -59.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.5% | 78.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -6.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARRY or RUN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ARRY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against RUN's 38. 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 ARRY or RUN the better buy right now?
ARRY 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ARRY over RUN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ARRY leads Quality by 23 points; ARRY leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; ARRY leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARRY or RUN?
Analyst price targets imply +96.1% upside for ARRY and +100.6% for RUN, so the Street currently favors RUN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ARRY. 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, ARRY or RUN?
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, ARRY or RUN?
ARRY 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, ARRY or RUN?
ARRY on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, ARRY or RUN?
ARRY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ARRY on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 ARRY more profitable than RUN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.3% vs 34.5%; operating margin 3.3% vs 2.7%; ttm roe -47% vs 2.5%. ARRY leads on one measure and RUN on two measures, 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 ARRY's lead over RUN getting stronger or weaker?
ARRY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 10 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 ARRY vs RUN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RUN closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ARRY's edge; RUN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ARRY'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 ARRY and RUN?
ARRY: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RUN: 1 bullish / 3 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 ARRY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RUN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ARRY and RUN 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.