CF vs ECL Stock Comparison
CF currently leads ECL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 55. The clearest difference is value, while ECL has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CF and ECL?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs Ecolab Inc.
CF leads
CF leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ECL on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CF, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Ecolab Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over ECL, 66 versus 55 as of Oct 21, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while ECL holds the stronger momentum profile. CF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ECL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and Ecolab 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 CF and ECL 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.
- Value64 vs 30CF +34
- Quality80 vs 51CF +29
- Momentum57 vs 81ECL +24
- Risk Resilience59 vs 70ECL +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; ECL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CF's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and ECL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
ECL (Ecolab Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ECLECL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
ECLECL on the Momentum factor, by 24 points.
Lower downside
ECLECL on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
ECLECL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor ECL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | ECL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.6% | +13.8% | ECL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40.8% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 8 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CF | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.76% | 7.23% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.890 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.000 | $2.680 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #82 | #177 |
CF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.76% a year against ECL's 7.23%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CF | 66 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CFon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs 8.6%; EPS growth 18.8% vs 24.8%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 21.4%; gross margin 42.5% vs 44.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 17.4% — CF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CF | Value 64 vs 30 |
| Technicals | ECL | Price vs 50-day -5.7% vs 3%; vs 200-day 2.7% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ECL | Risk Resilience 59 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | ECL | Target upside 9.6% vs 13.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and ECL 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 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CF +11
- 66 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +13
- 68 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- CF +7
- 57 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +19
- 65 vs 46
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CF
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.67%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only ECL
- 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: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -1.38%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.02%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1ECL closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2ECL's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3CF'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
CF leads on balance| Metric | CF | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 8.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 24.8% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 44.1% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 17.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 21.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 1.37 |
Performance
ECL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CF | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.6% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.2% | 4.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.4% | 8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | 6.4% |
| Year to date | 52.5% | 9.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 42.1% | 6.5% |
Technicals
ECL has the stronger structure| Metric | CF | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.2 | 69.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.7% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.7% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.7% | 14.9% |
Risk
ECL is the more resilient| Metric | CF | ECL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -1.04 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.93 | 0.11 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -20.3% |
| Current drawdown | -15.3% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.8% | 21.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or ECL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 66 against ECL's 55. The edge comes from value and quality. ECL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CF or ECL the better buy right now?
CF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 CF over ECL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Value by 34 points; CF leads Quality by 29 points; ECL leads Momentum by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or ECL?
Analyst price targets imply +9.6% upside for CF and +13.8% for ECL, so the Street currently favors ECL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, CF or ECL?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, CF or ECL?
ECL 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, CF or ECL?
ECL on the Momentum factor, by 24 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, CF or ECL?
ECL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ECL on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 CF more profitable than ECL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.5% vs 44.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 17.4%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 21.4%. CF leads on two measures and ECL 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 CF's lead over ECL getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CF vs ECL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ECL closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; ECL's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; CF'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 CF and ECL?
CF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ECL: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ECL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CF and ECL 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.