CLF vs FCX Stock Comparison
Compare CLF and FCX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLF and FCX?
FCX leads the current stock comparison as Freeport-McMoRan Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Freeport-McMoRan Inc.
FCX leads
FCX leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FCX, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FCX over CLF, 47 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. FCX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger value profile. FCX also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FCX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FCX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Freeport-McMoRan 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 CLF and FCX 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.
- Quality9 vs 50FCX +41
- Value65 vs 34CLF +31
- Risk Resilience27 vs 47FCX +20
- Momentum76 vs 60CLF +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FCX. FCX’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLF keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
No new signals fired.
FCX's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and FCX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FCX (Freeport-McMoRan Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
FCXFCX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLFCLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
FCXFCX on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
FCXFCX 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 | CLF | FCX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +3.1% | FCX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.6% | +32.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | 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 FCX. 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 | 45 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | FCXon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 12.8%; EPS growth 40.5% vs 11.5%; TTM ROE -15.2% vs 15.3%; operating margin -3.6% vs 26.7% — FCX takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLF | Value 65 vs 34 |
| Technicals | FCX | Price vs 50-day 8.1% vs 5.8%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 15.9% |
| Risk Resilience | FCX | Risk Resilience 27 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | FCX | Target upside -1.7% vs 3.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLF and FCX 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 FCX.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FCX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FCX +2
- 45 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- FCX +8
- 42 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- FCX +15
- 36 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- FCX +8
- 32 vs 40
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 8 when FCX moved ahead of CLF.
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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.46%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
FCX 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 +1.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.2%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FCX's edge.
- 2CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FCX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate FCX's advantage entirely.
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
FCX leads on balance| Metric | CLF | FCX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 12.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.5% | 11.5% |
| Gross margin | -0.6% | 26.8% |
| Operating margin | -3.6% | 26.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -15.2% | 15.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.52 |
Performance
FCX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLF | FCX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | -3.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | 2.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | 14.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.5% | 15.7% |
| Year to date | -10.9% | 40.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 52.6% |
Technicals
FCX has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | FCX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.1% | 5.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 15.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.2% | 55.3% |
Risk
FCX is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | FCX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 2.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | 1.47 |
| Max drawdown | -51.7% | -24.3% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -10.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.5% | 51.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or FCX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FCX is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLF is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CLF or FCX the better buy right now?
FCX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FCX over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FCX leads Quality by 41 points; CLF leads Value by 31 points; FCX leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or FCX?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for CLF and +3.1% for FCX, so the Street currently favors FCX. 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, CLF or FCX?
CLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, CLF or FCX?
CLF 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, CLF or FCX?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, CLF or FCX?
FCX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FCX on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 CLF more profitable than FCX?
FCX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -0.6% vs 26.8%; operating margin -3.6% vs 26.7%; ttm roe -15.2% vs 15.3%.
Is FCX's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
FCX lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 2 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-08, when FCX moved ahead of CLF.
What would change the CLF vs FCX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FCX's edge; CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FCX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate FCX's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLF and FCX?
CLF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. FCX: 3 bullish / 1 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 CLF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FCX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLF and FCX 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.