FCEL vs GEVO Stock Comparison
GEVO currently leads FCEL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 43 vs 30. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between FCEL and GEVO?
GEVO leads the current stock comparison as Gevo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
FuelCell Energy, Inc. vs Gevo, Inc.
GEVO leads
GEVO leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support GEVO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FuelCell Energy, Inc.
Gevo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEVO over FCEL, 43 versus 30 as of Oct 31, 2026. GEVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. GEVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEVO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 points over 30 sessions. GEVO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare FuelCell Energy, Inc. and Gevo, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare FCEL and GEVO 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 55GEVO +21
- Risk Resilience37 vs 53GEVO +16
- Quality27 vs 40GEVO +13
- Momentum24 vs 28GEVO +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor GEVO. GEVO’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GEVO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FCEL and GEVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
FCEL (FuelCell Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 116.2% against 47.9%.
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
GEVOGEVO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GEVOGEVO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEVOGEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
GEVOGEVO on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
GEVOGEVO on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
GEVOGEVO 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 | GEVO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +89.8% | +104% | GEVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +103.3% | +72.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEVO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GEVO | 30 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | FCELon balance | revenue growth 16.6% vs 8.3%; EPS growth -195.9% vs -7.2%; TTM ROE -31.7% vs -51.4%; gross margin -18.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin -93.4% vs -104.5% — FCEL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEVO | Value 34 vs 55 |
| Technicals | GEVO | Price vs 50-day -30.9% vs -12.1%; vs 200-day -16.9% vs -29.3% |
| Risk Resilience | GEVO | Risk Resilience 37 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | GEVO | Target upside 89.8% vs 104% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FCEL and GEVO 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GEVO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEVO +13
- 30 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- GEVO +14
- 30 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- GEVO +6
- 37 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- GEVO +18
- 35 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Oct 7 when GEVO moved ahead of FCEL.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FCEL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.97%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GEVO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.43%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
GEVO 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -7.88%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.31%, 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 Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge.
- 2FCEL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GEVO'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
FCEL leads on balance| Metric | FCEL | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.6% | 8.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -195.9% | -7.2% |
| Gross margin | -18.2% | 42.9% |
| Operating margin | -93.4% | -104.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.7% | -51.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.22 | 0.62 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FCEL | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | 9.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -24.6% | -7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -47.6% | -20.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.2% | -35.8% |
| Year to date | 69.4% | -39% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 55.7% | -50.6% |
Technicals
GEVO has the stronger structure| Metric | FCEL | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27 | 34.1 |
| ADX (14) | 16.7 | 38.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -30.9% | -12.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.9% | -29.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 116.2% | 47.9% |
Risk
GEVO is the more resilient| Metric | FCEL | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.84 | 0.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | -0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.07 | -1.22 |
| Max drawdown | -69.2% | -60% |
| Current drawdown | -65.6% | -56% |
| Annualized volatility | 135.6% | 61.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.9% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FCEL or GEVO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEVO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 43 against FCEL's 30. The edge comes from value 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 GEVO the better buy right now?
GEVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 GEVO over FCEL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEVO leads Value by 21 points; GEVO leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; GEVO leads Quality by 13 points. GEVO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by FCEL simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, FCEL or GEVO?
Analyst price targets imply +89.8% upside for FCEL and +104% for GEVO, so the Street currently favors GEVO. 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 GEVO?
GEVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 GEVO?
GEVO 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 GEVO?
GEVO 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, FCEL or GEVO?
GEVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEVO on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 GEVO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin -18.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin -93.4% vs -104.5%; ttm roe -31.7% vs -51.4%. FCEL leads on two measures and GEVO 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 GEVO's lead over FCEL getting stronger or weaker?
GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-07, when GEVO moved ahead of FCEL.
What would change the FCEL vs GEVO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCEL closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge; FCEL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GEVO'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 FCEL and GEVO?
FCEL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GEVO: 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 GEVO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FCEL and GEVO 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.