EVGO vs FCEL Stock Comparison
Compare EVGO and FCEL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EVGO and FCEL?
EVGO leads the current stock comparison as EVgo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EVgo, Inc. vs FuelCell Energy, Inc.
EVGO leads
EVGO leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EVGO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EVgo, Inc.
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EVGO over FCEL, 48 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. EVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while FCEL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EVGO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. EVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare EVgo, Inc. and FuelCell Energy, Inc. 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 EVGO and FCEL 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.
- Quality78 vs 27EVGO +51
- Risk Resilience29 vs 37FCEL +8
- Momentum35 vs 39FCEL +4
- Value37 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EVGO. EVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality; FCEL keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
EVGO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EVGO and FCEL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EVGO (EVgo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
FCEL (FuelCell Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 119.2% against 79.3%.
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
EVGOEVGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EVGOEVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
FCELFCEL on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
FCELFCEL on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EVGOEVGO 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 | EVGO | FCEL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +83.8% | +33.2% | EVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +40% | +103.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EVGO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EVGO | 48 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | EVGOon balance | revenue growth -24.5% vs 16.6%; EPS growth -25% vs -195.9%; TTM ROE 41.3% vs -31.7%; gross margin 18.5% vs -18.2%; operating margin -29.6% vs -93.4% — EVGO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 37 vs 34 |
| Technicals | FCEL | Price vs 50-day -14.1% vs -22.5%; vs 200-day -41.2% vs 14.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FCEL | Risk Resilience 29 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | EVGO | Target upside 83.8% vs 33.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EVGO and FCEL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 EVGO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EVGO +14
- 48 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- EVGO +17
- 49 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- EVGO +13
- 47 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- EVGO +4
- 46 vs 42
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 (42.80%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.13%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (51.09%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (13.01%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EVGO 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 +2.26%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.92%, 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.
- 1FCEL closes the Quality gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to EVGO's edge.
- 2FCEL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3EVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
EVGO leads on balance| Metric | EVGO | FCEL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.5% | 16.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -25% | -195.9% |
| Gross margin | 18.5% | -18.2% |
| Operating margin | -29.6% | -93.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 41.3% | -31.7% |
| Debt to equity | -20.32 | 0.22 |
Performance
FCEL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EVGO | FCEL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.4% | 8.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.8% | -28.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -29.6% | -3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -39.3% | 119.3% |
| Year to date | -53.9% | 113.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -66.2% | 269.4% |
Technicals
FCEL has the stronger structure| Metric | EVGO | FCEL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.6 | 39.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.1% | -22.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -41.2% | 14.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 79.3% | 119.2% |
Risk
FCEL is the more resilient| Metric | EVGO | FCEL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.78 | 3.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.38 | 1.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.28 | 3.14 |
| Max drawdown | -75% | -60% |
| Current drawdown | -73.5% | -56.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.5% | 138.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -10.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EVGO or FCEL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against FCEL's 34. The edge comes from quality. FCEL is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 EVGO or FCEL the better buy right now?
EVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EVGO over FCEL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EVGO leads Quality by 51 points; FCEL leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; FCEL leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EVGO or FCEL?
Analyst price targets imply +83.8% upside for EVGO and +33.2% for FCEL, so the Street currently favors EVGO. 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, EVGO or FCEL?
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, EVGO or FCEL?
EVGO 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, EVGO or FCEL?
FCEL on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, EVGO or FCEL?
FCEL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FCEL on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 EVGO more profitable than FCEL?
EVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.5% vs -18.2%; operating margin -29.6% vs -93.4%; ttm roe 41.3% vs -31.7%.
Is EVGO's lead over FCEL getting stronger or weaker?
EVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EVGO vs FCEL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCEL closes the Quality gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to EVGO's edge; FCEL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; EVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 EVGO and FCEL?
EVGO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FCEL: 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 EVGO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FCEL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EVGO and FCEL 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.