BLDP vs CHPT Stock Comparison
CHPT currently leads BLDP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 34. The clearest difference is momentum, while BLDP has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BLDP and CHPT?
CHPT leads the current stock comparison as ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ballard Power Systems Inc. vs ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.
CHPT leads
CHPT leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BLDP on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CHPT, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Ballard Power Systems Inc.
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHPT over BLDP, 54 versus 34 as of Oct 31, 2026. CHPT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while BLDP holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CHPT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BLDP. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHPT today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ballard Power Systems Inc. and ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare BLDP and CHPT 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.
- Momentum25 vs 71CHPT +46
- Value36 vs 65CHPT +29
- Risk Resilience41 vs 27BLDP +14
- Quality37 vs 44CHPT +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CHPT. CHPT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; BLDP keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
CHPT's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BLDP and CHPT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHPT (ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
BLDP (Ballard Power Systems Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
CHPTCHPT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CHPTCHPT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHPTCHPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
CHPTCHPT on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
BLDPBLDP on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
BLDPBLDP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHPT, analyst targets favor BLDP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BLDP | CHPT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +111.5% | -16.1% | BLDP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +90.4% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 CHPT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHPT | 34 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CHPTon balance | revenue growth 3.4% vs -6.9%; EPS growth -75.6% vs 5.4%; TTM ROE -13.2% vs -6.8%; gross margin 16.4% vs 30.6%; operating margin -63.7% vs -49% — CHPT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHPT | Value 36 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CHPT | Price vs 50-day -22.9% vs 18.5%; vs 200-day -44% vs 38.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BLDP | Risk Resilience 41 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | BLDP | Target upside 111.5% vs -16.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BLDP and CHPT and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CHPT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHPT +20
- 34 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CHPT +16
- 35 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- CHPT +14
- 35 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- CHPT +13
- 35 vs 48
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only BLDP
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (41.94%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CHPT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.21%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BLDP 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.88%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.91%, 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.
- 1BLDP closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHPT's edge.
- 2BLDP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CHPT'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
CHPT leads on balance| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | -6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -75.6% | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 16.4% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | -63.7% | -49% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13.2% | -6.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | -27.38 |
Performance
CHPT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.6% | 9.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -20.6% | -8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -41.9% | 67.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -51.2% | 41.4% |
| Year to date | -36.2% | 38.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -52.9% | -16.2% |
Technicals
CHPT has the stronger structure| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.8 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 45.6 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | -22.9% | 18.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -44% | 38.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.1% | 89.5% |
Risk
BLDP is the more resilient| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.78 | 3.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.7 | 0.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.24 | 0.6 |
| Max drawdown | -77.6% | -58.4% |
| Current drawdown | -74.6% | -15% |
| Annualized volatility | 75% | 107.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -7.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BLDP or CHPT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHPT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against BLDP's 34. The edge comes from momentum and value. BLDP 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 BLDP or CHPT the better buy right now?
CHPT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHPT over BLDP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHPT leads Momentum by 46 points; CHPT leads Value by 29 points; BLDP leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BLDP or CHPT?
Analyst price targets imply +111.5% upside for BLDP and -16.1% for CHPT, so the Street currently favors BLDP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHPT. 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, BLDP or CHPT?
CHPT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, BLDP or CHPT?
CHPT 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, BLDP or CHPT?
CHPT on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, BLDP or CHPT?
BLDP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BLDP on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 BLDP more profitable than CHPT?
CHPT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 16.4% vs 30.6%; operating margin -63.7% vs -49%; ttm roe -13.2% vs -6.8%.
Is CHPT's lead over BLDP getting stronger or weaker?
CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 20 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 BLDP vs CHPT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BLDP closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHPT's edge; BLDP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CHPT'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 BLDP and CHPT?
BLDP: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHPT: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 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 BLDP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHPT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BLDP and CHPT 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.