ENPH vs ETH Stock Comparison
ENPH currently leads ETH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 43 vs 41. The clearest difference is value, while ETH has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ENPH and ETH?
ENPH leads the current stock comparison as Enphase Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enphase Energy, Inc. vs Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF
ENPH leads
ENPH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ETH.
Fragile: 1 of 5 evidence groups support ENPH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enphase Energy, Inc.
Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ENPH over ETH, 43 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. ENPH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while ETH holds the stronger momentum profile. ENPH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ENPH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ENPH lead: Reversed — ETH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENPH now leads by 2.
Compare Enphase Energy, Inc. and Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ENPH and ETH 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.
- Value46 vs 23ENPH +23
- Momentum24 vs 41ETH +17
- Quality56 vs 58Even
- Risk Resilience43 vs 45Even
1 of 5 evidence groups favor ENPH. ENPH’s edge is concentrated in value; ETH keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ENPH's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENPH and ETH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ENPH (Enphase Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
ETH (Grayscale Ethereum Mini Trust ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, 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
ENPHENPH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ETHETH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENPHENPH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
ETHETH on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
ETHETH carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | ENPH | ETH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +71% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +139.1% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 5 covered evidence groups favor ENPH. 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 | 43 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | ETHon balance | revenue growth 3.2% vs 8%; EPS growth 5.5% vs 100%; TTM ROE 12.3% vs 8.4%; gross margin 46.9% vs 61.2%; operating margin 8.3% vs 7.8% — ETH takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENPH | Value 46 vs 23 |
| Technicals | ETH | Price vs 50-day -24.9% vs -10.9%; vs 200-day -28.7% vs 8.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 43 vs 45 |
| 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 ENPH and ETH 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ENPH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ENPH lead: Reversed — ETH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENPH now leads by 2.
- Today
- ENPH +2
- 43 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- ENPH +7
- 46 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- ETH +2
- 46 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ETH +5
- 45 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when ENPH moved ahead of ETH.
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ENPH
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.07%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ETH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.26%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
ENPH 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 down over the latest session (price -0.81%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -4.44%, 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.
- 1ETH closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENPH's edge.
- 2ETH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ENPH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 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
ETH leads on balance| Metric | ENPH | ETH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.2% | 8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 100% |
| Gross margin | 46.9% | 61.2% |
| Operating margin | 8.3% | 7.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.3% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.52 | 0.26 |
Performance
ETH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ENPH | ETH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -20.9% | -4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -24.2% | -11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.1% | 23.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19.9% | 6.8% |
| Year to date | -15.1% | -19.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24% | -38.8% |
Technicals
ETH has the stronger structure| Metric | ENPH | ETH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.7 | 42.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.9 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -24.9% | -10.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -28.7% | 8.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 73% | 36% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ENPH | ETH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.52 | 2.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | -0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.18 | -0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -65.5% | -61.1% |
| Current drawdown | -65.5% | -40.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 84.3% | 62.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENPH or ETH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ENPH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 43 against ETH's 41. The edge comes from value. ETH 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 ENPH or ETH the better buy right now?
ENPH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ENPH over ETH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ENPH leads Value by 23 points; ETH leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENPH or ETH?
Analyst price targets imply +71% upside for ENPH and not covered for ETH. 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, ENPH or ETH?
ENPH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENPH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, ENPH or ETH?
ETH 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, ENPH or ETH?
ETH on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, ENPH or ETH?
ETH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ETH 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 ENPH more profitable than ETH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46.9% vs 61.2%; operating margin 8.3% vs 7.8%; ttm roe 12.3% vs 8.4%. Each name leads 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 ENPH's lead over ETH getting stronger or weaker?
ENPH lead: Reversed — ETH led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ENPH now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when ENPH moved ahead of ETH.
What would change the ENPH vs ETH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETH closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to ENPH's edge; ETH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ENPH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; 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 ENPH and ETH?
ENPH: 2 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ETH: 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 ENPH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ETH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.