CRWV vs MARA Stock Comparison
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock vs Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
CRWV leads
CRWV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 26 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRWV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock
Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRWV over MARA, 35 versus 30 as of Sep 5, 2026. CRWV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MARA holds the stronger momentum profile. CRWV also shows the stronger 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 AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CoreWeave, Inc. Class A Common Stock and Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CRWV and MARA 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.
- Quality30%30 vs 8CRWV +22
- Momentum25%36 vs 57MARA +21
- Value30%53 vs 36CRWV +17
- Risk Resilience15%10 vs 16MARA +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRWV. CRWV’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MARA keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +15
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: CRWV moved ahead of MARA in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRWV and MARA 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.
MARA (Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 101.9% against 91.5%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
MARAMARA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRWVCRWV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
MARAMARA on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
MARAMARA on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | CRWV | MARA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.4% | -12.6% | CRWV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +92.4% | +116.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 4 | 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 | 35 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CRWVon balance | EPS growth 18.6% vs 51.7%; TTM ROE -45.4% vs -110.4%; gross margin 67.4% vs -8.5%; operating margin -3% vs -99.6% — CRWV takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRWV | Value 53 vs 36 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 4.4% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day -2.3% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MARA | Risk Resilience 10 vs 16 |
| Analyst expectations | CRWV | Target upside 51.4% vs -12.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRWV and MARA 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRWV +5
- 35 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CRWV +6
- 34 vs 28
- 30 sessions ago
- CRWV +26
- 48 vs 22
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 33 vs 33
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when CRWV moved ahead of MARA.
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.
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%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.78%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.16%)
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +5.68%, AIQ +3 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.5%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1MARA closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWV's edge.
- 2MARA'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 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 21 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-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 | CRWV | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 23.9% | 0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 51.7% |
| Gross margin | 67.4% | -8.5% |
| Operating margin | -3% | -99.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -45.4% | -110.4% |
| Debt to equity | 10.27 | 1.49 |
Performance
MARA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRWV | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.1% | 6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.4% | 12.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11% | -8.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.4% | 41.2% |
| Year to date | 24.8% | 25.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2% | -28.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CRWV | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.3 | 59.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.4% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.3% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 91.5% | 101.9% |
Risk
MARA is the more resilient| Metric | CRWV | MARA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.37 | 3.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.45 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.08 |
| Max drawdown | -57.5% | -70.5% |
| Current drawdown | -37.5% | -50.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 96.2% | 86.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.1% | -7.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRWV or MARA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRWV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 35 against MARA's 30. The edge comes from quality and value. MARA 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 CRWV or MARA the better buy right now?
CRWV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRWV over MARA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CRWV leads Quality by 22 points; MARA leads Momentum by 21 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, CRWV or MARA?
Analyst price targets imply +51.4% upside for CRWV and -12.6% for MARA, 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, CRWV or MARA?
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, CRWV or MARA?
MARA 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, CRWV or MARA?
MARA on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, CRWV or MARA?
MARA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MARA on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 CRWV more profitable than MARA?
CRWV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.4% vs -8.5%; operating margin -3% vs -99.6%; ttm roe -45.4% vs -110.4%.
Is CRWV's lead over MARA getting stronger or weaker?
CRWV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 26 to 5 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when CRWV moved ahead of MARA.
What would change the CRWV vs MARA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MARA closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRWV's edge; MARA'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 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 21 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate CRWV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CRWV and MARA?
CRWV: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MARA: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 CRWV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MARA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRWV and MARA 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.