CLSK vs COIN Stock Comparison
Compare CLSK and COIN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLSK and COIN?
COIN leads the current stock comparison as Coinbase Global, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CleanSpark, Inc. vs Coinbase Global, Inc.
COIN leads
COIN leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors CLSK on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support COIN.
CleanSpark, Inc.
Coinbase Global, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COIN over CLSK, 43 versus 28 as of Sep 11, 2026. COIN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CLSK holds the stronger value profile. COIN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CLSK. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COIN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. COIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CleanSpark, Inc. and Coinbase Global, 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 CLSK and COIN 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.
- Quality0 vs 52COIN +52
- Value39 vs 34CLSK +5
- Momentum50 vs 52Even
- Risk Resilience27 vs 27Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor COIN. COIN’s edge is concentrated in quality; CLSK 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 -21
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No new signals fired.
COIN's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLSK and COIN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COIN (Coinbase Global, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CLSK (CleanSpark, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals.
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
COINCOIN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLSKCLSK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLSKCLSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
COINCOIN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CLSKCLSK on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors COIN, analyst targets favor CLSK. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CLSK | COIN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41.4% | +15.1% | CLSK has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.1% | +116.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 19 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COIN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | COIN | 28 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 1.2% vs -13.7%; EPS growth 41.4% vs 8.7%; TTM ROE -75.2% vs -6.9%; gross margin -5.3% vs 79% |
| Valuation | CLSK | Value 39 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CLSK | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs 6.4%; vs 200-day 1.8% vs -10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 27 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | CLSK | Target upside 41.4% vs 15.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLSK and COIN 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 wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 COIN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10COIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COIN +15
- 28 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- COIN +19
- 28 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- COIN +17
- 27 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- COIN +14
- 27 vs 41
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jun 15 when COIN moved ahead of CLSK.
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.76%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.14%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.8%, AIQ -6 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.73%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1CLSK closes the Quality gap — currently 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to COIN's edge.
- 2CLSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3COIN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
Split| Metric | CLSK | COIN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | -13.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 41.4% | 8.7% |
| Gross margin | -5.3% | 79% |
| Operating margin | -79.4% | -0.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -75.2% | -6.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.34 | 0.51 |
Performance
CLSK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CLSK | COIN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13% | -1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | 15.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.1% | 11.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 30.5% | -13.3% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | -23.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.6% | -43% |
Technicals
CLSK has the stronger structure| Metric | CLSK | COIN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.3 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | 6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | -10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 88.2% | 84.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CLSK | COIN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.47 | 2.92 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | -0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | -1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -64.7% | -63.6% |
| Current drawdown | -44.8% | -55.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 95.2% | 70.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -6.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLSK or COIN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COIN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against CLSK's 28. The edge comes from quality. CLSK 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 CLSK or COIN the better buy right now?
COIN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COIN over CLSK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COIN leads Quality by 52 points; CLSK leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLSK or COIN?
Analyst price targets imply +41.4% upside for CLSK and +15.1% for COIN, so the Street currently favors CLSK. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors COIN. 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, CLSK or COIN?
CLSK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLSK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, CLSK or COIN?
CLSK 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, CLSK or COIN?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CLSK or COIN?
COIN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COIN carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CLSK more profitable than COIN?
COIN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -5.3% vs 79%; operating margin -79.4% vs -0.4%; ttm roe -75.2% vs -6.9%.
Is COIN's lead over CLSK getting stronger or weaker?
COIN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-15, when COIN moved ahead of CLSK.
What would change the CLSK vs COIN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLSK closes the Quality gap — currently 52 points behind, the largest single contributor to COIN's edge; CLSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; COIN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CLSK and COIN?
CLSK: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. COIN: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CLSK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COIN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLSK and COIN 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.