CF vs FSM Stock Comparison
Compare CF and FSM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CF and FSM?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs Fortuna Mining Corp.
CF leads
CF leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from FSM. Wall Street currently favors FSM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Fortuna Mining Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over FSM, 70 versus 63 as of Sep 11, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FSM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CF lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 7. CF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and Fortuna Mining Corp. 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 CF and FSM 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.
- Momentum75 vs 63CF +12
- Risk Resilience52 vs 41CF +11
- Quality80 vs 76CF +4
- Value64 vs 60CF +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
CF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and FSM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FSM (Fortuna Mining Corp.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 56.5% against 38.1%.
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
CFCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
CFCF on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
CFCF on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
FSMFSM 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 FSM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | FSM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.7% | +20.9% | FSM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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 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 | 70 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | CFon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs -7%; EPS growth 18.8% vs -30.6%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 22.2%; gross margin 42.5% vs 57.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 52.5% — CF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CF | Value 64 vs 60 |
| Technicals | FSM | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs 19.2%; vs 200-day 24% vs 19% |
| Risk Resilience | CF | Risk Resilience 52 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | FSM | Target upside -4.7% vs 20.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and FSM 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 7 points.
- 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'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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CF lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 7.
- Today
- CF +7
- 70 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +6
- 71 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- FSM +3
- 64 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +16
- 70 vs 54
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on May 27 when CF moved ahead of FSM.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.67%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
FSM 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.51%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.5%, 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.
- 1FSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2FSM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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 | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | -7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | -30.6% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 57.1% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 52.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 22.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 0.13 |
Performance
CF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CF | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.6% | 11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.7% | 48.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.5% | 6.3% |
| Year to date | 74.7% | 22.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | 53.7% |
Technicals
FSM has the stronger structure| Metric | CF | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.4 | 51.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 34.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | 19.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | 19% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.1% | 56.5% |
Risk
CF is the more resilient| Metric | CF | FSM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.92 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 0.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 2 | 1.46 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -11.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.9% | 58.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or FSM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against FSM's 63. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 FSM the better buy right now?
CF 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 CF over FSM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Momentum by 12 points; CF leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; CF leads Quality by 4 points. CF leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FSM simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or FSM?
Analyst price targets imply -4.7% upside for CF and +20.9% for FSM, so the Street currently favors FSM. 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 FSM?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 FSM?
CF 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 FSM?
CF on the Momentum factor, by 12 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 FSM?
CF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CF 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 FSM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.5% vs 57.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 52.5%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 22.2%. CF leads on one measure and FSM on two measures, 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 FSM getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Reversed — FSM led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 7. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-27, when CF moved ahead of FSM.
What would change the CF vs FSM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FSM closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; FSM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 FSM?
CF: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FSM: 1 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 CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FSM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CF and FSM 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.