CRCL vs CRWV Stock Comparison
Circle Internet Group vs CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
CRCL leads
CRCL leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CRWV on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRCL, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Circle Internet Group
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRCL over CRWV, 49 versus 35 as of Sep 5, 2026. CRCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CRWV holds the stronger value profile. CRCL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRWV. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRCL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CRCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Circle Internet Group and CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CRCL 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.
- Momentum25%84 vs 36CRCL +48
- Value30%24 vs 53CRWV +29
- Quality30%53 vs 30CRCL +23
- Risk Resilience15%33 vs 10CRCL +23
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRCL. CRCL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CRWV keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
No new signals fired.
CRCL's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRCL and CRWV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRCL (Circle Internet Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CRWV (CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
CRCLCRCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CRWVCRWV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRWVCRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
CRCLCRCL on the Momentum factor, by 48 points.
Lower downside
CRCLCRCL on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
CRWVCRWV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRCL, analyst targets favor CRWV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRCL | CRWV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.3% | +51.4% | CRWV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +124.8% | +92.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 18 | 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 CRCL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRCL | 49 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CRWVon balance | revenue growth 1% vs 23.9%; EPS growth -17.4% vs 18.6%; TTM ROE 13.6% vs -45.4%; gross margin 20% vs 67.4%; operating margin 8.2% vs -3% — CRWV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRWV | Value 24 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CRCL | Price vs 50-day 40.8% vs 4.4%; vs 200-day 19.9% vs -2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CRCL | Risk Resilience 33 vs 10 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWV | Target upside -11.3% vs 51.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRCL 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 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 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 swung materially session to session. (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 CRCL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4CRCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRCL +14
- 49 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CRCL +16
- 50 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CRCL +2
- 35 vs 33
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 11 when CRCL 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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.42%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.84%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.85%)
CRCL 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 -1.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +5.68%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRCL's edge.
- 2CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CRCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | CRCL | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | 23.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -17.4% | 18.6% |
| Gross margin | 20% | 67.4% |
| Operating margin | 8.2% | -3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.6% | -45.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 10.27 |
Performance
CRCL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRCL | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 17.1% | 6.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 53.1% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 27.1% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.1% | 22.4% |
| Year to date | 28.7% | 24.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -14% | -2% |
Technicals
CRCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CRCL | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 28.3 |
| ADX (14) | 36.7 | 11 |
| Price vs 50-day | 40.8% | 4.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.9% | -2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 96.1% | 91.5% |
Risk
CRCL is the more resilient| Metric | CRCL | CRWV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.04 | 3.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | 0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.53 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -66.6% | -57.5% |
| Current drawdown | -32.2% | -37.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 98.7% | 96.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.4% | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRCL or CRWV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRCL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 49 against CRWV's 35. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CRWV 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 CRCL or CRWV the better buy right now?
CRCL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 CRCL over CRWV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CRCL leads Momentum by 48 points; CRWV leads Value by 29 points; CRCL leads Quality by 23 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRCL or CRWV?
Analyst price targets imply -11.3% upside for CRCL and +51.4% for CRWV, so the Street currently favors CRWV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRCL. 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, CRCL or CRWV?
CRWV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, CRCL 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, CRCL or CRWV?
CRCL on the Momentum factor, by 48 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CRCL or CRWV?
CRCL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRCL on Risk Resilience, by 23 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CRCL more profitable than CRWV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20% vs 67.4%; operating margin 8.2% vs -3%; ttm roe 13.6% vs -45.4%. CRCL leads on two measures and CRWV on one measure, 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 CRCL's lead over CRWV getting stronger or weaker?
CRCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-11, when CRCL moved ahead of CRWV.
What would change the CRCL vs CRWV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRWV closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRCL's edge; CRWV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CRCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CRCL and CRWV?
CRCL: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRWV: 1 bullish / 2 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 CRCL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CRWV it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRCL and CRWV with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.