FCEL vs FSLR Stock Comparison
Compare FCEL and FSLR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FCEL and FSLR?
FSLR leads the current stock comparison as First Solar, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FuelCell Energy, Inc. vs First Solar, Inc.
FSLR leads
FSLR leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 25 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FCEL on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FSLR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
First Solar, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FSLR over FCEL, 51 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. FSLR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. FSLR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FCEL. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSLR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FSLR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FuelCell Energy, Inc. and First Solar, 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 FSLR 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.
- Quality27 vs 68FSLR +41
- Risk Resilience37 vs 51FSLR +14
- Value34 vs 45FSLR +11
- Momentum39 vs 38Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FSLR. FSLR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No new signals fired.
FSLR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FCEL and FSLR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FSLR (First Solar, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
FCEL (FuelCell Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 119.2% against 37.2%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
FSLRFSLR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FSLRFSLR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FSLRFSLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FSLRFSLR on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
FCELFCEL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FSLR, analyst targets favor FCEL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FCEL | FSLR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | +26.6% | FCEL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +103.9% | +48.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSLR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FSLR | 34 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | FSLRon balance | revenue growth 16.6% vs 1.1%; EPS growth -195.9% vs 21.7%; TTM ROE -31.7% vs 18%; gross margin -18.2% vs 44%; operating margin -93.4% vs 33.6% — FSLR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FSLR | Value 34 vs 45 |
| Technicals | FCEL | Price vs 50-day -22.5% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day 14.8% vs -9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | FSLR | Risk Resilience 37 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | FCEL | Target upside 33.2% vs 26.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FCEL and FSLR 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 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 FSLR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FSLR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FSLR +17
- 34 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- FSLR +17
- 32 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- FSLR +25
- 34 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- FSLR +8
- 42 vs 50
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 / 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.79%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.79%)
FSLR 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 +1.92%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.9%, AIQ +3 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 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge.
- 2FCEL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FSLR'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate FSLR'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
FSLR leads on balance| Metric | FCEL | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.6% | 1.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | -18.2% | 44% |
| Operating margin | -93.4% | 33.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.7% | 18% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 0.02 |
Performance
FCEL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FCEL | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.3% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -28.1% | -8.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | -16.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 119.3% | 3.5% |
| Year to date | 113.3% | -20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 269.4% | 1.9% |
Technicals
FCEL has the stronger structure| Metric | FCEL | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.7 | 44 |
| ADX (14) | 11.9 | 14.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -22.5% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.8% | -9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 119.2% | 37.2% |
Risk
FSLR is the more resilient| Metric | FCEL | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.6 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.43 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.14 | 0.35 |
| Max drawdown | -60% | -37.4% |
| Current drawdown | -56.7% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 138.1% | 53.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.7% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FCEL or FSLR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FSLR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against FCEL's 34. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 FSLR the better buy right now?
FSLR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 FSLR over FCEL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSLR leads Quality by 41 points; FSLR leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; FSLR leads Value by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FCEL or FSLR?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for FCEL and +26.6% for FSLR, so the Street currently favors FCEL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FSLR. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, FCEL or FSLR?
FSLR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FSLR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 FSLR?
FSLR 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 FSLR?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 FSLR?
FSLR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FSLR on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 FSLR?
FSLR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -18.2% vs 44%; operating margin -93.4% vs 33.6%; ttm roe -31.7% vs 18%.
Is FSLR's lead over FCEL getting stronger or weaker?
FSLR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 25 to 17 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 FCEL vs FSLR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCEL closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge; FCEL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FSLR'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 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 17-point move would eliminate FSLR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FCEL and FSLR?
FCEL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FSLR: 1 bullish / 2 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 FCEL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FSLR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FCEL and FSLR 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.