CLF vs KALU Stock Comparison
Compare CLF and KALU across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLF and KALU?
KALU leads the current stock comparison as Kaiser Aluminum Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
KALU leads
KALU leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support KALU, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KALU over CLF, 53 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. KALU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger momentum profile. KALU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KALU today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. KALU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Kaiser Aluminum Corporation 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 KALU 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 45KALU +36
- Momentum76 vs 59CLF +17
- Risk Resilience27 vs 41KALU +14
- Value65 vs 63Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor KALU. KALU’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CLF keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -20
No new signals fired.
KALU's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and KALU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KALU (Kaiser Aluminum Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
KALUKALU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KALUKALU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
KALUKALU on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
KALUKALU 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 | KALU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +9.1% | KALU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.6% | +27.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | 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 KALU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KALU | 45 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | KALU | revenue growth 6.2% vs 13.5%; EPS growth 40.5% vs 53.8%; TTM ROE -15.2% vs 26.3%; operating margin -3.6% vs 8.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 63 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 8.1% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 7.5% |
| Risk Resilience | KALU | Risk Resilience 27 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | KALU | Target upside -1.7% vs 9.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLF and KALU 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 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 KALU.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KALU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KALU +8
- 45 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- KALU +5
- 42 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- KALU +12
- 36 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- KALU +14
- 32 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 / 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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.93%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.95%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CLF 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.
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 -0.77%, AIQ -5 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 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to KALU's edge.
- 2CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KALU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate KALU'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
KALU leads on balance| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 13.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.5% | 53.8% |
| Gross margin | -0.6% | 11.5% |
| Operating margin | -3.6% | 8.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -15.2% | 26.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 1.13 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | -2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | -16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | -9.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.5% | 24.2% |
| Year to date | -10.9% | 37.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | 106.6% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 12.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.1% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 7.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.2% | 58% |
Risk
KALU is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 1.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | 1.64 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | 2.64 |
| Max drawdown | -51.7% | -26% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -19% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.5% | 52.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or KALU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KALU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 53 against CLF's 45. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CLF 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 CLF or KALU the better buy right now?
KALU 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 KALU over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KALU leads Quality by 36 points; CLF leads Momentum by 17 points; KALU leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or KALU?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for CLF and +9.1% for KALU, so the Street currently favors KALU. 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 KALU?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 KALU?
KALU 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 KALU?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 KALU?
KALU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KALU 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 CLF more profitable than KALU?
KALU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -0.6% vs 11.5%; operating margin -3.6% vs 8.2%; ttm roe -15.2% vs 26.3%.
Is KALU's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
KALU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLF vs KALU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to KALU's edge; CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KALU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate KALU's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLF and KALU?
CLF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. KALU: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 KALU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLF and KALU 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.