CENX vs WY Stock Comparison
Compare CENX and WY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CENX and WY?
CENX leads the current stock comparison as Century Aluminum Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Aluminum Company vs Weyerhaeuser Company
CENX leads
CENX leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CENX, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Century Aluminum Company
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CENX over WY, 60 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. CENX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while WY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CENX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CENX today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CENX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Century Aluminum Company and Weyerhaeuser Company 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 CENX and WY 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.
- Quality74 vs 32CENX +42
- Risk Resilience40 vs 67WY +27
- Value67 vs 41CENX +26
- Momentum45 vs 24CENX +21
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CENX. CENX’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; WY 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 -28
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CENX's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CENX and WY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CENX (Century Aluminum Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
WY (Weyerhaeuser Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
CENXCENX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WYWY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CENXCENX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
CENXCENX on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
WYWY on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
CENXCENX 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 | CENX | WY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +60.4% | +31.5% | CENX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.1% | +6.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CENX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CENX | 60 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | CENXon balance | revenue growth 15.9% vs 8.1%; EPS growth -26.1% vs 4.5%; TTM ROE 58.6% vs 5%; gross margin 19.3% vs 13.2%; operating margin 14.9% vs 8.4% — CENX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CENX | Value 67 vs 41 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -8.1%; vs 200-day -10.9% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | WY | Risk Resilience 40 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | CENX | Target upside 60.4% vs 31.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CENX and WY 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 22 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 CENX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CENX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CENX +22
- 60 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- CENX +23
- 62 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- CENX +8
- 56 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CENX +14
- 53 vs 39
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 / 3 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CENX 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 -0.7%, AIQ -6 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.32%, 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.
- 1WY closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to CENX's edge.
- 2WY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CENX'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
CENX leads on balance| Metric | CENX | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.9% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -26.1% | 4.5% |
| Gross margin | 19.3% | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | 14.9% | 8.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 58.6% | 5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.34 | 0.57 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CENX | WY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.9% | -11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.9% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17.3% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | -7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 104.1% | -15.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CENX | WY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.9 | 14.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.1 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.9% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.3% | 22.2% |
Risk
WY is the more resilient| Metric | CENX | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.6 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.35 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.1 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -39.6% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -35.5% | -18.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.2% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CENX or WY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CENX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 60 against WY's 38. The edge comes from quality and value. WY 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 CENX or WY the better buy right now?
CENX 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 CENX over WY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CENX leads Quality by 42 points; WY leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; CENX leads Value by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CENX or WY?
Analyst price targets imply +60.4% upside for CENX and +31.5% for WY, so the Street currently favors CENX. 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, CENX or WY?
CENX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CENX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, CENX or WY?
WY 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, CENX or WY?
CENX on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, CENX or WY?
WY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WY on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 CENX more profitable than WY?
CENX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 19.3% vs 13.2%; operating margin 14.9% vs 8.4%; ttm roe 58.6% vs 5%.
Is CENX's lead over WY getting stronger or weaker?
CENX lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 22 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 CENX vs WY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WY closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to CENX's edge; WY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CENX'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 CENX and WY?
CENX: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted. WY: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 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 CENX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CENX and WY 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.