CLF vs KALU Stock Comparison
Compare CLF vs KALU on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CLF and KALU?
CLF and KALU are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
CLF and KALU are effectively level
CLF and KALU are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CLF and KALU as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Kaiser Aluminum Corporation 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 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.
- Momentum72 vs 18CLF +54
- Quality11 vs 43KALU +32
- Risk Resilience27 vs 41KALU +14
- Value65 vs 73KALU +8
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
KALU's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and KALU both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KALUKALU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 54 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 | -9.2% | +51.9% | KALU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +65.5% | +13.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 45 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | KALUon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs -3.4%; EPS growth 208% vs -67.9%; TTM ROE -8.1% vs 24.1%; gross margin 1.9% vs 10.7%; operating margin -1% vs 7.7% — KALU takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KALU | Value 65 vs 73 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 16.3% vs -22.5%; vs 200-day 22.7% vs -21.2% |
| Risk Resilience | KALU | Risk Resilience 27 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | KALU | Target upside -9.2% vs 51.9% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28KALU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- CLF +1
- 44 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- KALU +12
- 40 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- KALU +5
- 40 vs 45
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 24 when KALU 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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only CLF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.84%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only KALU
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.30%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 -0.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.96%, AIQ -1 points).
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) | 7.4% | -3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 208% | -67.9% |
| Gross margin | 1.9% | 10.7% |
| Operating margin | -1% | 7.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.1% | 24.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.34 | 1.09 |
Performance
CLF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -21.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 26.6% | -16.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.9% | -24.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36% | -30% |
| Year to date | 5% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.2% | 26.2% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 31.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16.3% | -22.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 22.7% | -21.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 82.5% | 96% |
Risk
KALU is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | KALU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.09 | 2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.26 | 0.68 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.39 | 0.79 |
| Max drawdown | -48.2% | -46.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.6% | -38.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.5% | 55.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or KALU?
Analyst price targets imply -9.2% upside for CLF and +51.9% for KALU, so the Street currently favors KALU. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CLF or KALU?
KALU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KALU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 KALU?
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 KALU?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 54 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 1.9% vs 10.7%; operating margin -1% vs 7.7%; ttm roe -8.1% vs 24.1%.
What do the current signals say about CLF and KALU?
CLF: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. KALU: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CLF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KALU it is Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.