BLDP vs CSIQ Stock Comparison
Compare BLDP and CSIQ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BLDP and CSIQ?
BLDP leads the current stock comparison as Ballard Power Systems Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ballard Power Systems Inc. vs Canadian Solar Inc.
BLDP leads
BLDP leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CSIQ.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support BLDP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ballard Power Systems Inc.
Canadian Solar Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BLDP over CSIQ, 36 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. BLDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CSIQ holds the stronger value profile. BLDP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLDP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. BLDP lead: Reversed — CSIQ led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDP now leads by 3.
Compare Ballard Power Systems Inc. and Canadian Solar 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 CSIQ 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.
- Quality37 vs 7BLDP +30
- Value36 vs 65CSIQ +29
- Risk Resilience42 vs 28BLDP +14
- Momentum33 vs 29BLDP +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor BLDP. BLDP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CSIQ keeps a meaningful value 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
BLDP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BLDP and CSIQ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BLDP (Ballard Power Systems Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CSIQ (Canadian Solar Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 59.5% against 47.6%.
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
BLDPBLDP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CSIQCSIQ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CSIQCSIQ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
BLDPBLDP on the Momentum factor, by 4 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
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BLDP | CSIQ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +60.6% | +31.3% | BLDP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +84.5% | +17.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BLDP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 36 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | CSIQon balance | revenue growth 3.4% vs -11.4%; EPS growth -75.6% vs 63.3%; TTM ROE -13.2% vs -6.6%; gross margin 16.4% vs 16.4% — CSIQ takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CSIQ | Value 36 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CSIQ | Price vs 50-day -18% vs -12.7%; vs 200-day -26.5% vs -26.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BLDP | Risk Resilience 42 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | BLDP | Target upside 60.6% vs 31.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BLDP and CSIQ 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BLDP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BLDP lead: Reversed — CSIQ led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDP now leads by 3.
- Today
- BLDP +3
- 36 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- BLDP +2
- 36 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- CSIQ +7
- 35 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- BLDP +2
- 36 vs 34
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when BLDP moved ahead of CSIQ.
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%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.30%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
BLDP 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.07%, 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.
- 1CSIQ closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLDP's edge.
- 2CSIQ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BLDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CSIQ leads on balance| Metric | BLDP | CSIQ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | -11.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -75.6% | 63.3% |
| Gross margin | 16.4% | 16.4% |
| Operating margin | -63.7% | -0.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13.2% | -6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 2.65 |
Performance
BLDP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BLDP | CSIQ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.9% | -2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.3% | -17.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -49.3% | -14.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.3% | -26.3% |
| Year to date | -12.6% | -45.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.4% | 19.3% |
Technicals
CSIQ has the stronger structure| Metric | BLDP | CSIQ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 34.9 |
| ADX (14) | 30.5 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18% | -12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.5% | -26.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.6% | 59.5% |
Risk
BLDP is the more resilient| Metric | BLDP | CSIQ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.76 | 2.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 1 | 0.87 |
| Max drawdown | -65.2% | -63.9% |
| Current drawdown | -65.2% | -61.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 82.6% | 93.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.5% | -8.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BLDP or CSIQ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BLDP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 36 against CSIQ's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CSIQ is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CSIQ the better buy right now?
BLDP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BLDP over CSIQ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BLDP leads Quality by 30 points; CSIQ 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 CSIQ?
Analyst price targets imply +60.6% upside for BLDP and +31.3% for CSIQ, so the Street currently favors BLDP. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BLDP or CSIQ?
CSIQ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSIQ 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 CSIQ?
CSIQ 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 CSIQ?
BLDP on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 CSIQ?
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 CSIQ?
CSIQ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 16.4% vs 16.4%; operating margin -63.7% vs -0.6%; ttm roe -13.2% vs -6.6%.
Is BLDP's lead over CSIQ getting stronger or weaker?
BLDP lead: Reversed — CSIQ led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BLDP now leads by 3. 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 2026-08-26, when BLDP moved ahead of CSIQ.
What would change the BLDP vs CSIQ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSIQ closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to BLDP's edge; CSIQ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BLDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 CSIQ?
BLDP: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CSIQ: 0 bullish / 3 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 CSIQ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BLDP and CSIQ 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.