CRCL vs HUT Stock Comparison
CRCL currently leads HUT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 40 vs 30. The clearest difference is momentum, while HUT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CRCL and HUT?
CRCL leads the current stock comparison as Circle Internet Group, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Circle Internet Group vs Hut 8 Corp.
CRCL leads
CRCL leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HUT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRCL, and its lead is widening.
Circle Internet Group
Hut 8 Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRCL over HUT, 40 versus 30 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while HUT 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 HUT. 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 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Circle Internet Group and Hut 8 Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare CRCL and HUT 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.
- Momentum46 vs 19CRCL +27
- Quality53 vs 37CRCL +16
- Value24 vs 34HUT +10
- Risk Resilience33 vs 24CRCL +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRCL. CRCL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; HUT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CRCL's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRCL and HUT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRCL (Circle Internet Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
HUT (Hut 8 Corp.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 77.6% against 60.6%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
HUTHUT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HUTHUT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
CRCLCRCL on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
CRCLCRCL on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
HUTHUT 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 HUT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRCL | HUT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.8% | +125.3% | HUT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +123.7% | +114.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 13 | 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 | 40 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | HUTon balance | revenue growth 1% vs 5.5%; EPS growth -17.4% vs 35.9%; TTM ROE 13.6% vs -39.5%; gross margin 20% vs 25.3%; operating margin 8.2% vs -31.1% — HUT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HUT | Value 24 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CRCL | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -18%; vs 200-day -0.3% vs -16.1% |
| Risk Resilience | CRCL | Risk Resilience 33 vs 24 |
| Analyst expectations | HUT | Target upside 1.8% vs 125.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRCL and HUT 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRCL +10
- 40 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CRCL +13
- 43 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CRCL +3
- 39 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- CRCL +13
- 47 vs 34
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Oct 5 when CRCL moved ahead of HUT.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CRCL
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HUT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.10%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
HUT 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.47%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.68%, 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.
- 1HUT closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRCL's edge.
- 2HUT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CRCL 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
HUT leads on balance| Metric | CRCL | HUT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -17.4% | 35.9% |
| Gross margin | 20% | 25.3% |
| Operating margin | 8.2% | -31.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.6% | -39.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.31 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CRCL | HUT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | -17.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.2% | -31.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 29.8% | -37.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.6% | -9.6% |
| Year to date | 8.3% | 50.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -33.2% | 41.5% |
Technicals
CRCL has the stronger structure| Metric | CRCL | HUT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 12.9 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -18% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.3% | -16.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.6% | 77.6% |
Risk
CRCL is the more resilient| Metric | CRCL | HUT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.95 | 4.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.05 | 1.45 |
| Max drawdown | -64.6% | -49.1% |
| Current drawdown | -39.5% | -48.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 96.7% | 108.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.4% | -10.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRCL or HUT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRCL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 40 against HUT's 30. The edge comes from momentum and quality. HUT 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 HUT the better buy right now?
CRCL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 HUT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRCL leads Momentum by 27 points; CRCL leads Quality by 16 points; HUT leads Value by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRCL or HUT?
Analyst price targets imply +1.8% upside for CRCL and +125.3% for HUT, so the Street currently favors HUT. 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 HUT?
HUT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HUT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 HUT?
HUT 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 HUT?
CRCL on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, CRCL or HUT?
CRCL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRCL on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 CRCL more profitable than HUT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20% vs 25.3%; operating margin 8.2% vs -31.1%; ttm roe 13.6% vs -39.5%. CRCL leads on two measures and HUT 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 HUT getting stronger or weaker?
CRCL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-05, when CRCL moved ahead of HUT.
What would change the CRCL vs HUT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HUT closes the Momentum gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRCL's edge; HUT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CRCL 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 CRCL and HUT?
CRCL: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. HUT: 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 HUT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRCL and HUT 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.