CLF vs WOR Stock Comparison
Compare CLF and WOR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLF and WOR?
WOR leads the current stock comparison as Worthington Industries, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Worthington Industries, Inc.
WOR leads
WOR leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 27 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WOR, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Worthington Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WOR over CLF, 62 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. WOR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CLF holds the stronger momentum profile. WOR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WOR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WOR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Worthington Industries, 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 WOR 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 53WOR +44
- Risk Resilience27 vs 65WOR +38
- Momentum76 vs 66CLF +10
- Value65 vs 65Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WOR. WOR’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 -5
No new signals fired.
WOR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and WOR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WOR (Worthington Industries, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 50.2% against 33.7%.
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
WORWOR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLFCLF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
WORWOR on Risk Resilience, by 38 points.
Analyst upside
WORWOR 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 | WOR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +15.9% | WOR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.6% | +3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WOR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WOR | 45 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 6.2% vs -1.9%; EPS growth 40.5% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE -15.2% vs 15.8%; operating margin -3.6% vs 6% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 65 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 8.1% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 4.4% |
| Risk Resilience | WOR | Risk Resilience 27 vs 65 |
| Analyst expectations | WOR | Target upside -1.7% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLF and WOR 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 WOR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10WOR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WOR +17
- 45 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- WOR +24
- 42 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- WOR +27
- 36 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- WOR +19
- 32 vs 51
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
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 -1.18%, AIQ -1 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to WOR's edge.
- 2CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WOR's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate WOR'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
Split| Metric | CLF | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.5% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | -0.6% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | -3.6% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -15.2% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.34 |
Performance
WOR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CLF | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | 0.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.5% | 16.8% |
| Year to date | -10.9% | 11.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | -11.2% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 54.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 19.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.1% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 4.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.2% | 33.7% |
Risk
WOR is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 0.88 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | -0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | -0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -51.7% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -12% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.5% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or WOR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WOR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 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 WOR the better buy right now?
WOR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 WOR over CLF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WOR leads Quality by 44 points; WOR leads Risk Resilience by 38 points; CLF leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or WOR?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for CLF and +15.9% for WOR, so the Street currently favors WOR. 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 WOR?
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 WOR?
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 WOR?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 WOR?
WOR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WOR on Risk Resilience, by 38 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 WOR?
WOR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -0.6% vs 27.3%; operating margin -3.6% vs 6%; ttm roe -15.2% vs 15.8%.
Is WOR's lead over CLF getting stronger or weaker?
WOR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 27 to 17 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 WOR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLF closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to WOR's edge; CLF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WOR's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate WOR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLF and WOR?
CLF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WOR: 4 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 WOR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLF and WOR 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.