CORZ vs CRWV Stock Comparison
Compare CORZ and CRWV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CORZ and CRWV?
CORZ leads the current stock comparison as Core Scientific, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Core Scientific, Inc. vs CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
CORZ leads
CORZ leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CORZ, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Core Scientific, Inc.
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CORZ over CRWV, 47 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. CORZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CRWV holds the stronger momentum profile. CORZ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CORZ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CORZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Core Scientific, 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 CORZ 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.
- Quality83 vs 30CORZ +53
- Momentum37 vs 56CRWV +19
- Value36 vs 53CRWV +17
- Risk Resilience11 vs 10Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CORZ. CORZ’s edge is concentrated in quality; CRWV 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
No new signals fired.
CORZ's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CORZ and CRWV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CORZ (Core Scientific, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CRWV (CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock): the counter-case, on momentum, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 75.7% against 59.7%.
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
CORZCORZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRWVCRWV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRWVCRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
CRWVCRWV on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
CORZCORZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CORZCORZ 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 | CORZ | CRWV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +91.2% | +53.9% | CORZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +91.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 17 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CORZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CORZ | 47 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | CRWVon balance | revenue growth 42.5% vs 23.9%; EPS growth -213.2% vs 18.6%; TTM ROE 98.7% vs -45.4%; gross margin 28.3% vs 67.4%; operating margin -33.7% vs -3% — CRWV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRWV | Value 36 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CRWV | Price vs 50-day -11.9% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day -12% vs -2.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 11 vs 10 |
| Analyst expectations | CORZ | Target upside 91.2% vs 53.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CORZ and CRWV 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CORZ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CORZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CORZ +7
- 47 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- CORZ +10
- 45 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- CORZ +2
- 45 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CORZ +14
- 44 vs 30
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when CORZ 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 (3.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.04%)
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 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 +3.28%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CRWV closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to CORZ's edge.
- 2CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CORZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CRWV leads on balance| Metric | CORZ | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 42.5% | 23.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -213.2% | 18.6% |
| Gross margin | 28.3% | 67.4% |
| Operating margin | -33.7% | -3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 98.7% | -45.4% |
| Debt to equity | -1.78 | 10.27 |
Performance
CRWV leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CORZ | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.3% | 10.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.8% | -17.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -32.4% | -6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5% | 8.7% |
| Year to date | 19.3% | 24.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.7% | -4.7% |
Technicals
CRWV has the stronger structure| Metric | CORZ | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.8 | 49.3 |
| ADX (14) | 27.9 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.9% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12% | -2.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 59.7% | 75.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CORZ | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.69 | 3.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.59 |
| Max drawdown | -44.9% | -57.5% |
| Current drawdown | -40.4% | -37.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 71.2% | 96.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CORZ or CRWV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CORZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against CRWV's 40. The edge comes from quality. CRWV 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 CORZ or CRWV the better buy right now?
CORZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 CORZ over CRWV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CORZ leads Quality by 53 points; CRWV leads Momentum by 19 points; CRWV leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CORZ or CRWV?
Analyst price targets imply +91.2% upside for CORZ and +53.9% for CRWV, so the Street currently favors CORZ. 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, CORZ or CRWV?
CRWV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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, CORZ or CRWV?
CRWV 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, CORZ or CRWV?
CRWV on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, CORZ or CRWV?
CORZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CORZ 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 CORZ more profitable than CRWV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 28.3% vs 67.4%; operating margin -33.7% vs -3%; ttm roe 98.7% vs -45.4%. CORZ leads on one measure and CRWV on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CORZ's lead over CRWV getting stronger or weaker?
CORZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when CORZ moved ahead of CRWV.
What would change the CORZ vs CRWV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWV closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to CORZ's edge; CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CORZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CORZ and CRWV?
CORZ: 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 CORZ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRWV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CORZ 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.