BLDP vs CHPT Stock Comparison
Compare BLDP and CHPT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
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 21 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BLDP on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CHPT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ballard Power Systems Inc.
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHPT over BLDP, 57 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 21 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 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 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.
- Momentum33 vs 80CHPT +47
- Value36 vs 65CHPT +29
- Risk Resilience42 vs 27BLDP +15
- 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 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CHPT's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 47 points.
Lower downside
BLDPBLDP on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 | +60.6% | -11.7% | BLDP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +84.5% | 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 | 36 vs 57 |
| 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 -18% vs 47.7%; vs 200-day -26.5% vs 37.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BLDP | Risk Resilience 42 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | BLDP | Target upside 60.6% vs -11.7% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 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)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHPT +21
- 36 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- CHPT +21
- 36 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- CHPT +13
- 35 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CHPT +9
- 36 vs 45
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.41%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.10%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.90%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CHPT 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 down over the latest session (price -0.45%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.46%, 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.
- 1BLDP closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | 72.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.3% | 39.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -49.3% | 39.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.3% | 61.8% |
| Year to date | -12.6% | 34.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.4% | -17.7% |
Technicals
CHPT has the stronger structure| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 71.2 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 26.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18% | 47.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.5% | 37.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.6% | — |
Risk
BLDP is the more resilient| Metric | BLDP | CHPT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.76 | 3.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | 0.55 |
| Max drawdown | -65.2% | -63.5% |
| Current drawdown | -65.2% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 82.6% | 104.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -6.9% |
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 Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against BLDP's 36. 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 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 CHPT over BLDP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHPT leads Momentum by 47 points; CHPT leads Value by 29 points; BLDP leads Risk Resilience by 15 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 +60.6% upside for BLDP and -11.7% 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 47 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 15 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 13 to 21 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 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 47 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 BLDP and CHPT?
BLDP: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHPT: 2 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 BLDP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHPT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.