CLF vs WY Stock Comparison
Compare CLF and WY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLF and WY?
CLF leads the current stock comparison as Cleveland-Cliffs Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. vs Weyerhaeuser Company
CLF leads
CLF leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from WY. Wall Street currently favors WY on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CLF, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.
Weyerhaeuser Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CLF over WY, 45 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. CLF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while WY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CLF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WY. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CLF lead: Reversed — WY led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLF now leads by 7.
Compare Cleveland-Cliffs Inc. and Weyerhaeuser Company 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 WY 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.
- Momentum76 vs 24CLF +52
- Risk Resilience27 vs 67WY +40
- Value65 vs 41CLF +24
- Quality9 vs 32WY +23
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CLF. CLF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; WY 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CLF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLF and WY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CLF (Cleveland-Cliffs Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
WY (Weyerhaeuser Company): 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
CLFCLF 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 24 points.
Momentum
CLFCLF on the Momentum factor, by 52 points.
Lower downside
WYWY on Risk Resilience, by 40 points.
Analyst upside
WYWY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CLF, analyst targets favor WY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CLF | WY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.7% | +31.5% | WY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.6% | +6.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | 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 CLF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CLF | 45 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | WYon balance | revenue growth 6.2% vs 8.1%; EPS growth 40.5% vs 4.5%; TTM ROE -15.2% vs 5%; operating margin -3.6% vs 8.4% — WY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLF | Value 65 vs 41 |
| Technicals | CLF | Price vs 50-day 8.1% vs -8.1%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | WY | Risk Resilience 27 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | WY | Target upside -1.7% vs 31.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLF and WY 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 CLF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CLF lead: Reversed — WY led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLF now leads by 7.
- Today
- CLF +7
- 45 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- CLF +3
- 42 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- WY +12
- 36 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- WY +7
- 32 vs 39
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when CLF moved ahead of WY.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CLF 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.32%, 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.
- 1WY closes the Momentum gap — currently 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLF's edge.
- 2WY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
WY leads on balance| Metric | CLF | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 8.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 40.5% | 4.5% |
| Gross margin | -0.6% | 13.2% |
| Operating margin | -3.6% | 8.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -15.2% | 5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.37 | 0.57 |
Performance
CLF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLF | WY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.4% | -11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.5% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -10.9% | -7.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.4% | -15.1% |
Technicals
CLF has the stronger structure| Metric | CLF | WY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 66.6 | 14.2 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.1% | -8.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.2% | 22.2% |
Risk
WY is the more resilient| Metric | CLF | WY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.32 | 0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.42 | -0.54 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.6 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -51.7% | -18.9% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -18.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.5% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLF or WY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CLF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 45 against WY's 38. The edge comes from momentum and value. WY 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 CLF or WY the better buy right now?
CLF 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 CLF over WY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CLF leads Momentum by 52 points; WY leads Risk Resilience by 40 points; CLF leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLF or WY?
Analyst price targets imply -1.7% upside for CLF and +31.5% for WY, so the Street currently favors WY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CLF. 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, CLF or WY?
CLF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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 WY?
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 WY?
CLF on the Momentum factor, by 52 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 WY?
WY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WY on Risk Resilience, by 40 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 WY?
WY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -0.6% vs 13.2%; operating margin -3.6% vs 8.4%; ttm roe -15.2% vs 5%.
Is CLF's lead over WY getting stronger or weaker?
CLF lead: Reversed — WY led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLF now leads by 7. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when CLF moved ahead of WY.
What would change the CLF vs WY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WY closes the Momentum gap — currently 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLF's edge; WY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CLF's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 CLF and WY?
CLF: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WY: 2 bullish / 4 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 WY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLF and WY 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.