BBAI vs WULF Stock Comparison
BBAI currently leads WULF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 41 vs 31. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between BBAI and WULF?
BBAI leads the current stock comparison as BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. vs TeraWulf Inc.
BBAI leads
BBAI leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BBAI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc.
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BBAI over WULF, 41 versus 31 as of Oct 31, 2026. BBAI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. BBAI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBAI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BBAI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc. and TeraWulf Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare BBAI 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.
- Risk Resilience39 vs 13BBAI +26
- Quality42 vs 30BBAI +12
- Value38 vs 34BBAI +4
- Momentum43 vs 41Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BBAI. BBAI’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
BBAI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BBAI and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BBAI (BigBear.ai Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 94.3% against 73.9%.
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
BBAIBBAI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BBAIBBAI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BBAIBBAI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BBAIBBAI on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 BBAI, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BBAI | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +53.8% | +217.4% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +153.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBAI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BBAI | 41 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | BBAIon balance | revenue growth 6.7% vs 31.6%; EPS growth 58.3% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE -12.3% vs -17.1%; gross margin 27.9% vs 69.3%; operating margin -72.8% vs -228.5% — BBAI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BBAI | Value 38 vs 34 |
| Technicals | BBAI | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs -20.9%; vs 200-day -32.4% vs -25.9% |
| Risk Resilience | BBAI | Risk Resilience 39 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside 53.8% vs 217.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BBAI 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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)
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 BBAI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BBAI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BBAI +10
- 41 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- BBAI +9
- 36 vs 27
- 30 sessions ago
- BBAI +9
- 37 vs 28
- 90 sessions ago
- BBAI +12
- 40 vs 28
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
Only BBAI
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WULF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BBAI 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.62%, AIQ +2 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -8%, 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.
- 1WULF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBAI's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BBAI'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
BBAI leads on balance| Metric | BBAI | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.7% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 58.3% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 27.9% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | -72.8% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.3% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 35.56 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BBAI | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.3% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.2% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.1% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -35.6% | -33% |
| Year to date | -54.4% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -65.1% | -2.1% |
Technicals
BBAI has the stronger structure| Metric | BBAI | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.6 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.5 | 33.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | -20.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -32.4% | -25.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 73.9% | 94.3% |
Risk
BBAI is the more resilient| Metric | BBAI | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.31 | 3.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.85 | 0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -70.4% | -60.9% |
| Current drawdown | -65.7% | -53.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 78.4% | 92.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.4% | -9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BBAI or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BBAI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 41 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 BBAI or WULF the better buy right now?
BBAI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 BBAI over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BBAI leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; BBAI leads Quality by 12 points; BBAI leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BBAI or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply +53.8% upside for BBAI and +217.4% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BBAI. 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, BBAI or WULF?
BBAI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BBAI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, BBAI or WULF?
BBAI 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, BBAI or WULF?
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, BBAI or WULF?
BBAI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BBAI on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 BBAI more profitable than WULF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 27.9% vs 69.3%; operating margin -72.8% vs -228.5%; ttm roe -12.3% vs -17.1%. BBAI leads on two measures and WULF 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 BBAI's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
BBAI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BBAI vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBAI's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BBAI'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 BBAI and WULF?
BBAI: 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 BBAI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BBAI 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.