CMP vs MT Stock Comparison
Compare CMP and MT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CMP and MT?
MT leads the current stock comparison as ArcelorMittal S.A., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Compass Minerals International, Inc. vs ArcelorMittal S.A.
MT leads
MT leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CMP on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MT, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Compass Minerals International, Inc.
ArcelorMittal S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MT over CMP, 54 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. MT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. MT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMP. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MT today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. MT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 17 points over 30 sessions. MT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Compass Minerals International, Inc. and ArcelorMittal S.A. 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 CMP and MT 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.
- Momentum45 vs 73MT +28
- Quality15 vs 34MT +19
- Value49 vs 61MT +12
- Risk Resilience44 vs 50MT +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MT. MT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MT's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMP and MT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MT (ArcelorMittal S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CMP (Compass Minerals International, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 46.4% against 33.2%.
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
MTMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
MTMT on the Momentum factor, by 28 points.
Lower downside
MTMT on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CMPCMP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MT, analyst targets favor CMP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMP | MT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25% | -6.3% | CMP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.8% | +31.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 3 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MT | 37 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CMPon balance | revenue growth -52.5% vs 8.4%; EPS growth -143.3% vs 18.4%; TTM ROE 7.1% vs 3.3%; gross margin 17.2% vs 9.6%; operating margin 8.9% vs 4.3% — CMP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MT | Value 49 vs 61 |
| Technicals | MT | Price vs 50-day -10.1% vs 5.7%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs 25.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MT | Risk Resilience 44 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | CMP | Target upside 25% vs -6.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMP and MT 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)
- 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 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 MT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MT +17
- 37 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- MT +16
- 38 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MT +22
- 33 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- MT +9
- 34 vs 43
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 / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.48%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.45%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MT 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.08%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.73%, 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.
- 1CMP closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MT's edge.
- 2CMP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate MT'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
CMP leads on balance| Metric | CMP | MT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -52.5% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -143.3% | 18.4% |
| Gross margin | 17.2% | 9.6% |
| Operating margin | 8.9% | 4.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.1% | 3.3% |
| Debt to equity | 2.76 | 0.26 |
Performance
MT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CMP | MT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.4% | 17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.1% | 32.5% |
| Year to date | 27.6% | 64.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | 119.4% |
Technicals
MT has the stronger structure| Metric | CMP | MT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.1 | 63.7 |
| ADX (14) | 29.9 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.1% | 5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | 25.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.4% | 33.2% |
Risk
MT is the more resilient| Metric | CMP | MT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.67 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.07 | 3.21 |
| Max drawdown | -27.1% | -28.8% |
| Current drawdown | -25.2% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.6% | 43.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMP or MT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against CMP's 37. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 CMP or MT the better buy right now?
MT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 MT over CMP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MT leads Momentum by 28 points; MT leads Quality by 19 points; MT leads Value by 12 points. MT leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CMP simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CMP or MT?
Analyst price targets imply +25% upside for CMP and -6.3% for MT, so the Street currently favors CMP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MT. 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, CMP or MT?
MT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, CMP or MT?
MT 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, CMP or MT?
MT on the Momentum factor, by 28 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, CMP or MT?
MT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MT on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 CMP more profitable than MT?
CMP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.2% vs 9.6%; operating margin 8.9% vs 4.3%; ttm roe 7.1% vs 3.3%.
Is MT's lead over CMP getting stronger or weaker?
MT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 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 CMP vs MT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMP closes the Momentum gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MT's edge; CMP's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate MT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CMP and MT?
CMP: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. MT: 3 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 CMP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMP and MT 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.