CLSK vs CRWV Stock Comparison
Compare CLSK and CRWV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CLSK and CRWV?
CRWV leads the current stock comparison as CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CleanSpark, Inc. vs CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
CRWV leads
CRWV leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRWV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CleanSpark, Inc.
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRWV over CLSK, 40 versus 28 as of Sep 11, 2026. CRWV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CLSK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CRWV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRWV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CleanSpark, Inc. and CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock 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 CRWV 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 30CRWV +30
- Risk Resilience27 vs 10CLSK +17
- Value39 vs 53CRWV +14
- Momentum50 vs 56CRWV +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRWV. CRWV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CLSK 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 -21
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
No new signals fired.
CRWV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLSK and CRWV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRWV (CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CLSK (CleanSpark, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 88.2% against 75.7%.
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
CRWVCRWV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CRWVCRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
CRWVCRWV on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CLSKCLSK on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
CRWVCRWV 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 | CLSK | CRWV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41.4% | +53.9% | CRWV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.1% | +91.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 17 | 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 CRWV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRWV | 28 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | CRWVon balance | revenue growth 1.2% vs 23.9%; EPS growth 41.4% vs 18.6%; TTM ROE -75.2% vs -45.4%; gross margin -5.3% vs 67.4%; operating margin -79.4% vs -3% — CRWV takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRWV | Value 39 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CLSK | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day 1.8% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CLSK | Risk Resilience 27 vs 10 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWV | Target upside 41.4% vs 53.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLSK and CRWV 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 CRWV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRWV +12
- 28 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- CRWV +7
- 28 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWV +16
- 27 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CRWV +3
- 27 vs 30
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when CLSK moved ahead of CRWV.
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%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.41%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.49%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CRWV 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.
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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.15%, AIQ -3 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWV's edge.
- 2CLSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CRWV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate CRWV'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
CRWV leads on balance| Metric | CLSK | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 23.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 41.4% | 18.6% |
| Gross margin | -5.3% | 67.4% |
| Operating margin | -79.4% | -3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -75.2% | -45.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.34 | 10.27 |
Performance
CLSK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CLSK | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 13% | 10.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | -17.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.1% | -6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 30.5% | 8.7% |
| Year to date | 26.5% | 24.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.6% | -4.7% |
Technicals
CLSK has the stronger structure| Metric | CLSK | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.3 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 88.2% | 75.7% |
Risk
CLSK is the more resilient| Metric | CLSK | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.47 | 3.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -64.7% | -57.5% |
| Current drawdown | -44.8% | -37.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 95.2% | 96.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLSK or CRWV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRWV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against CLSK's 28. The edge comes from quality and value. CLSK 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 CLSK or CRWV the better buy right now?
CRWV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRWV over CLSK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRWV leads Quality by 30 points; CLSK leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; CRWV leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLSK or CRWV?
Analyst price targets imply +41.4% upside for CLSK and +53.9% for CRWV, so the Street currently favors CRWV. 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, CLSK or CRWV?
CRWV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 CRWV?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 CRWV?
CRWV on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, CLSK or CRWV?
CLSK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CLSK on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 CLSK more profitable than CRWV?
CRWV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -5.3% vs 67.4%; operating margin -79.4% vs -3%; ttm roe -75.2% vs -45.4%.
Is CRWV's lead over CLSK getting stronger or weaker?
CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when CLSK moved ahead of CRWV.
What would change the CLSK vs CRWV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLSK closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWV's edge; CLSK's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CRWV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate CRWV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLSK and CRWV?
CLSK: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. CRWV: 1 bullish / 1 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 CLSK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRWV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLSK and CRWV 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.