FCEL vs FLNC Stock Comparison
Compare FCEL and FLNC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FCEL and FLNC?
FLNC leads the current stock comparison as Fluence Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FuelCell Energy, Inc. vs Fluence Energy, Inc.
FLNC leads
FLNC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FLNC.
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Fluence Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLNC over FCEL, 36 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. FLNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while FCEL holds the stronger momentum profile. FLNC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLNC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points.
Compare FuelCell Energy, Inc. and Fluence 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 FCEL and FLNC 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.
- Value34 vs 64FLNC +30
- Momentum39 vs 28FCEL +11
- Quality27 vs 18FCEL +9
- Risk Resilience37 vs 28FCEL +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FLNC. FLNC’s edge is concentrated in value; FCEL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
The central trade-off
FLNC (Fluence Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
FCEL (FuelCell Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, quality, risk resilience — but at materially higher volatility, 119.2% against 61.7%.
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
FLNCFLNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FLNCFLNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLNCFLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
FCELFCEL on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
FCELFCEL on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
FLNCFLNC 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 | FCEL | FLNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | +77.8% | FLNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +103.9% | +113.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 12 | 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 FLNC. 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 | 34 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | FLNC | revenue growth 16.6% vs 39.8%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -50%; TTM ROE -31.7% vs -20.7%; gross margin -18.2% vs 9.2%; operating margin -93.4% vs -4.1% |
| Valuation | FLNC | Value 34 vs 64 |
| Technicals | FCEL | Price vs 50-day -22.5% vs -25.2%; vs 200-day 14.8% vs -43.7% |
| Risk Resilience | FCEL | Risk Resilience 37 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | FLNC | Target upside 33.2% vs 77.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FCEL and FLNC 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 FLNC.
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 Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLNC's edge.
- 2FCEL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3FLNC 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
FLNC leads on balance| Metric | FCEL | FLNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.6% | 39.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -50% |
| Gross margin | -18.2% | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | -93.4% | -4.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.7% | -20.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 1.05 |
Performance
FCEL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FCEL | FLNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.3% | -8.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -28.1% | -26.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | -55.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 119.3% | -43.4% |
| Year to date | 113.3% | -47.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 269.4% | 34.4% |
Technicals
FCEL has the stronger structure| Metric | FCEL | FLNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 33.4 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -22.5% | -25.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.8% | -43.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 119.2% | 61.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FCEL or FLNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLNC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 36 against FCEL's 34. The edge comes from value. FCEL 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 FCEL or FLNC the better buy right now?
FLNC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 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 FLNC over FCEL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FLNC leads Value by 30 points; FCEL leads Momentum by 11 points; FCEL leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FCEL or FLNC?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for FCEL and +77.8% for FLNC, so the Street currently favors FLNC. 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, FCEL or FLNC?
FLNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, FCEL or FLNC?
FLNC 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, FCEL or FLNC?
FCEL on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, FCEL or FLNC?
FCEL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FCEL 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 FCEL more profitable than FLNC?
FLNC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -18.2% vs 9.2%; operating margin -93.4% vs -4.1%; ttm roe -31.7% vs -20.7%.
What would change the FCEL vs FLNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCEL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLNC's edge; FCEL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; FLNC 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.
Compare FCEL and FLNC 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.