B vs CF Stock Comparison
Compare B and CF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between B and CF?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Barrick Mining Corporation vs CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
CF leads
CF leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from B. Wall Street currently favors B on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Barrick Mining Corporation
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over B, 70 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while B holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors B. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CF lead: Reversed — B led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8.
Compare Barrick Mining Corporation and CF Industries Holdings, 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 B and CF 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.
- Momentum52 vs 75CF +23
- Risk Resilience64 vs 52B +12
- Value56 vs 64CF +8
- Quality77 vs 80Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; B keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 -6
No new signals fired.
CF's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — B and CF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
B (Barrick Mining Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 45.7% against 38.1%.
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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
CFCF on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
BB on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
BB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor B. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | B | CF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.1% | -4.7% | B has more room |
| Target dispersion | +47.3% | +23.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | 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 CF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CF | 62 vs 70 |
| Fundamentals | CFon balance | revenue growth 1.4% vs 11.9%; EPS growth -22.3% vs 18.8%; TTM ROE 24.6% vs 40.4%; gross margin 56.3% vs 42.5%; operating margin 52.9% vs 38.1% — CF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CF | Value 56 vs 64 |
| Technicals | CF | Price vs 50-day 7.8% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day 1.9% vs 24% |
| Risk Resilience | B | Risk Resilience 64 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | B | Target upside 16.1% vs -4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of B and CF 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 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CF lead: Reversed — B led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8.
- Today
- CF +8
- 62 vs 70
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +5
- 66 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- B +5
- 69 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +15
- 55 vs 70
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when CF moved ahead of B.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.23%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.60%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
B is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.51%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.51%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1B closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2B's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CF leads on balance| Metric | B | CF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.4% | 11.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -22.3% | 18.8% |
| Gross margin | 56.3% | 42.5% |
| Operating margin | 52.9% | 38.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.6% | 40.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | 0.63 |
Performance
CF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | B | CF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.5% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.4% | 12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.9% | 23.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.4% | 12.5% |
| Year to date | -0.2% | 74.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 53.9% | 59.9% |
Technicals
CF has the stronger structure| Metric | B | CF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.6 | 63.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 23.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.8% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.9% | 24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 38.1% |
Risk
B is the more resilient| Metric | B | CF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.68 | -0.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 1.22 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.41 | 2 |
| Max drawdown | -34.2% | -25.8% |
| Current drawdown | -18% | -3% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.8% | 42.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, B or CF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against B's 62. The edge comes from momentum and value. B 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 B or CF the better buy right now?
CF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CF over B?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Momentum by 23 points; B leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; CF leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, B or CF?
Analyst price targets imply +16.1% upside for B and -4.7% for CF, so the Street currently favors B. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, B or CF?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, B or CF?
CF 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, B or CF?
CF on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, B or CF?
B is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. B on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 B more profitable than CF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.3% vs 42.5%; operating margin 52.9% vs 38.1%; ttm roe 24.6% vs 40.4%. B leads on two measures and CF 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 CF's lead over B getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Reversed — B led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when CF moved ahead of B.
What would change the B vs CF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: B closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; b's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 B and CF?
B: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CF: 5 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 B is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare B and CF 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.