DNN vs LTBR Stock Comparison
Compare DNN and LTBR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DNN and LTBR?
LTBR leads the current stock comparison as Lightbridge Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Denison Mines Corp. vs Lightbridge Corporation
LTBR leads
LTBR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 4 evidence groups support LTBR, and its lead is narrowing.
Denison Mines Corp.
Lightbridge Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LTBR over DNN, 34 versus 33 as of Sep 6, 2026. LTBR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while DNN holds the stronger momentum profile. LTBR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LTBR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. LTBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Denison Mines Corp. and Lightbridge Corporation 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 DNN and LTBR 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%68 vs 35DNN +33
- Quality30%0 vs 30LTBR +30
- Risk Resilience15%36 vs 40LTBR +4
1 of 4 evidence groups favor LTBR. LTBR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; DNN keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LTBR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DNN and LTBR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LTBR (Lightbridge Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
DNN (Denison Mines Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
LTBRLTBR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
DNNDNN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
DNNDNN on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
LTBRLTBR on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DNN | LTBR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +24.3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 0 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 4 covered evidence groups favor LTBR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 33 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 121.8% vs 10%; TTM ROE -83.5% vs -11.5% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | DNN | Price vs 50-day 8.4% vs -7.7%; vs 200-day 1.8% vs -36.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LTBR | Risk Resilience 36 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DNN and LTBR 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 LTBR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5LTBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LTBR +1
- 33 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 31 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- LTBR +6
- 32 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- LTBR +6
- 28 vs 34
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.45%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.07%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (45.23%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
DNN 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 +0.29%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.34%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1DNN closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to LTBR's edge.
- 2DNN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LTBR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate LTBR'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
Split| Metric | DNN | LTBR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -34.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 121.8% | 10% |
| Gross margin | -14.1% | 0% |
| Operating margin | -21% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -83.5% | -11.5% |
| Debt to equity | 2.38 | 0 |
Performance
DNN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DNN | LTBR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.2% | -20% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.9% | -19.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.8% | -33.8% |
| Year to date | 28.6% | -40% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 45.5% | -47.7% |
Technicals
DNN has the stronger structure| Metric | DNN | LTBR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.2 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 16.9 | 14.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.4% | -7.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | -36.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63.9% | 60.6% |
Risk
LTBR is the more resilient| Metric | DNN | LTBR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.2 | 4.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.9 | -0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | -0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -38.4% | -74% |
| Current drawdown | -21.7% | -72.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.6% | 92.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -9.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DNN or LTBR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LTBR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 34 against DNN's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. DNN 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 DNN or LTBR the better buy right now?
LTBR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LTBR over DNN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. DNN leads Momentum by 33 points; LTBR leads Quality by 30 points; LTBR leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DNN or LTBR?
Analyst price targets imply +24.3% upside for DNN and not covered for LTBR. 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, DNN or LTBR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, DNN or LTBR?
DNN 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, DNN or LTBR?
DNN on the Momentum factor, by 33 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, DNN or LTBR?
LTBR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LTBR on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 DNN more profitable than LTBR?
LTBR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -14.1% vs 0%; operating margin -21% vs 0%; ttm roe -83.5% vs -11.5%.
Is LTBR's lead over DNN getting stronger or weaker?
LTBR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the DNN vs LTBR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DNN closes the Quality gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to LTBR's edge; DNN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LTBR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate LTBR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DNN and LTBR?
DNN: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. LTBR: 0 bullish / 3 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 DNN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On LTBR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DNN and LTBR 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.