CFLT vs MAG Stock Comparison
MAG currently leads CFLT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 52. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CFLT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CFLT and MAG?
MAG leads the current stock comparison as MAG Silver Corp., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Confluent, Inc. vs MAG Silver Corp.
MAG leads
MAG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value. Wall Street currently favors CFLT on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support MAG.
Confluent, Inc.
MAG Silver Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MAG over CFLT, 55 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. MAG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while CFLT holds the stronger quality profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors CFLT. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor MAG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. MAG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Confluent, Inc. and MAG Silver Corp. 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 CFLT and MAG 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.
- Risk Resilience86 vs 100MAG +14
- Value40 vs 47MAG +7
- Quality46 vs 40CFLT +6
3 of 5 evidence groups favor MAG. MAG’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; CFLT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
MAG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CFLT and MAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MAG (MAG Silver Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CFLT (Confluent, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, 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
MAGMAG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MAGMAG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MAGMAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MAGMAG on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
CFLTCFLT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MAG, analyst targets favor CFLT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CFLT | MAG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0% | -10.1% | CFLT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor MAG. 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 | 52 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | MAG | EPS growth -21.1% vs 17.9%; TTM ROE -27% vs 10.3% |
| Valuation | MAG | Value 40 vs 47 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | MAG | Risk Resilience 86 vs 100 |
| Analyst expectations | CFLT | Target upside 0% vs -10.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CFLT and MAG 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 MAG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MAG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MAG +3
- 52 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- MAG +3
- 52 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- MAG +3
- 52 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- MAG +4
- 52 vs 56
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
- 1CFLT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAG's edge.
- 2CFLT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MAG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MAG leads on balance| Metric | CFLT | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -21.1% | 17.9% |
| Gross margin | 74.3% | 0% |
| Operating margin | -30.9% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -27% | 10.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.95 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CFLT | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.4% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.8% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 59.3% | — |
| Year to date | 2.5% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.6% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CFLT | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 79.4 | — |
| ADX (14) | 35.8 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.9% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.3% | — |
Risk
MAG is the more resilient| Metric | CFLT | MAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.99 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 5.22 | — |
| Max drawdown | -15.2% | — |
| Current drawdown | 0% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 51.7% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CFLT or MAG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MAG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 against CFLT's 52. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. CFLT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CFLT or MAG the better buy right now?
MAG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 MAG over CFLT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MAG leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; MAG leads Value by 7 points; CFLT leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CFLT or MAG?
Analyst price targets imply +0% upside for CFLT and -10.1% for MAG, so the Street currently favors CFLT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MAG. 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, CFLT or MAG?
MAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, CFLT or MAG?
MAG 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, CFLT or MAG?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CFLT or MAG?
MAG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MAG 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 CFLT more profitable than MAG?
MAG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.3% vs 0%; operating margin -30.9% vs 0%; ttm roe -27% vs 10.3%.
Is MAG's lead over CFLT getting stronger or weaker?
MAG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CFLT vs MAG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CFLT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MAG's edge; CFLT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; MAG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CFLT and MAG?
CFLT: No active signals. MAG: No active signals.
Compare CFLT and MAG 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.