CHPT vs ENPH Stock Comparison
Compare CHPT and ENPH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHPT and ENPH?
CHPT leads the current stock comparison as ChargePoint Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. vs Enphase Energy, Inc.
CHPT leads
CHPT leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ENPH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CHPT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.
Enphase Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHPT over ENPH, 57 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. CHPT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ENPH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CHPT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ENPH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHPT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ChargePoint Holdings, Inc. and Enphase Energy, 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 CHPT and ENPH 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.
- Momentum80 vs 37CHPT +43
- Value65 vs 46CHPT +19
- Risk Resilience27 vs 43ENPH +16
- Quality44 vs 56ENPH +12
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CHPT. CHPT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ENPH 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
CHPT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHPT and ENPH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHPT (ChargePoint Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ENPH (Enphase Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, fundamentals.
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
CHPTCHPT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ENPHENPH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHPTCHPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
CHPTCHPT on the Momentum factor, by 43 points.
Lower downside
ENPHENPH on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
ENPHENPH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHPT, analyst targets favor ENPH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CHPT | ENPH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.7% | +26.2% | ENPH has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +131.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 15 | 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 6 covered evidence groups favor CHPT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHPT | 57 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ENPH | revenue growth -6.9% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 5.4% vs 5.5%; TTM ROE -6.8% vs 12.3%; gross margin 30.6% vs 46.9%; operating margin -49% vs 8.3% |
| Valuation | CHPT | Value 65 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CHPT | Price vs 50-day 47.7% vs -8.5%; vs 200-day 37.5% vs -9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | ENPH | Risk Resilience 27 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | ENPH | Target upside -11.7% vs 26.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHPT and ENPH 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 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 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 CHPT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHPT +11
- 57 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- CHPT +11
- 57 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- CHPT +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- CHPT +2
- 45 vs 43
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jul 1 when CHPT moved ahead of ENPH.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.90%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.01%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
CHPT 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.46%, AIQ 0 points).
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).
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.
- 1ENPH closes the Momentum gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHPT's edge.
- 2ENPH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CHPT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ENPH leads on balance| Metric | CHPT | ENPH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.9% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 5.5% |
| Gross margin | 30.6% | 46.9% |
| Operating margin | -49% | 8.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.8% | 12.3% |
| Debt to equity | -27.38 | 0.52 |
Performance
CHPT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHPT | ENPH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 72.1% | 3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 39.5% | -9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 39.5% | -27.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 61.8% | -15% |
| Year to date | 34.5% | 15% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.7% | -5% |
Technicals
CHPT has the stronger structure| Metric | CHPT | ENPH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.2 | 44.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.9 | 10 |
| Price vs 50-day | 47.7% | -8.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 37.5% | -9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 51.3% |
Risk
ENPH is the more resilient| Metric | CHPT | ENPH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.26 | 2.56 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.24 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.55 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -63.5% | -51.5% |
| Current drawdown | -27.6% | -49% |
| Annualized volatility | 104.4% | 82.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -6.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHPT or ENPH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHPT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against ENPH's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. ENPH 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 CHPT or ENPH the better buy right now?
CHPT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHPT over ENPH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHPT leads Momentum by 43 points; CHPT leads Value by 19 points; ENPH leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHPT or ENPH?
Analyst price targets imply -11.7% upside for CHPT and +26.2% for ENPH, so the Street currently favors ENPH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHPT. 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, CHPT or ENPH?
CHPT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHPT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, CHPT or ENPH?
ENPH 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, CHPT or ENPH?
CHPT on the Momentum factor, by 43 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, CHPT or ENPH?
ENPH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ENPH on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 CHPT more profitable than ENPH?
ENPH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.6% vs 46.9%; operating margin -49% vs 8.3%; ttm roe -6.8% vs 12.3%.
Is CHPT's lead over ENPH getting stronger or weaker?
CHPT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-01, when CHPT moved ahead of ENPH.
What would change the CHPT vs ENPH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ENPH closes the Momentum gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHPT's edge; ENPH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CHPT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 CHPT and ENPH?
CHPT: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. ENPH: 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 CHPT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ENPH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CHPT and ENPH 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.