FCX vs MT Stock Comparison
Compare FCX and MT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FCX and MT?
MT leads the current stock comparison as ArcelorMittal S.A., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. vs ArcelorMittal S.A.
MT leads
MT leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FCX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MT, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc.
ArcelorMittal S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MT over FCX, 54 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. MT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while FCX holds the stronger quality profile. MT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FCX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Freeport-McMoRan Inc. and ArcelorMittal S.A. 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 FCX and MT 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 61MT +27
- Quality50 vs 34FCX +16
- Momentum60 vs 73MT +13
- Risk Resilience47 vs 50Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MT. MT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; FCX keeps a meaningful quality 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 -12
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MT's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FCX and MT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MT (ArcelorMittal S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
FCX (Freeport-McMoRan Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.3% against 33.2%.
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
MTMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
MTMT on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
MTMT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FCXFCX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MT, analyst targets favor FCX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FCX | MT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.1% | -6.3% | FCX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +31.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 3 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MT | 47 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | FCXon balance | revenue growth 12.8% vs 8.4%; EPS growth 11.5% vs 18.4%; TTM ROE 15.3% vs 3.3%; gross margin 26.8% vs 9.6%; operating margin 26.7% vs 4.3% — FCX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MT | Value 34 vs 61 |
| Technicals | MT | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs 5.7%; vs 200-day 15.9% vs 25.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 47 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | FCX | Target upside 3.1% vs -6.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FCX and MT 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 MT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MT +7
- 47 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- MT +4
- 50 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- MT +4
- 51 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- MT +3
- 40 vs 43
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when FCX moved ahead of MT.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MT 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 -0.2%, AIQ -4 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.73%, 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.
- 1FCX closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to MT's edge.
- 2FCX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
FCX leads on balance| Metric | FCX | MT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.8% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | 18.4% |
| Gross margin | 26.8% | 9.6% |
| Operating margin | 26.7% | 4.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.3% | 3.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.52 | 0.26 |
Performance
MT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FCX | MT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.9% | 1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.7% | 17.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.7% | 32.5% |
| Year to date | 40.2% | 64.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.6% | 119.4% |
Technicals
MT has the stronger structure| Metric | FCX | MT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50 | 63.7 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | 5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.9% | 25.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.3% | 33.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | FCX | MT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.25 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.13 | 1.97 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.47 | 3.21 |
| Max drawdown | -24.3% | -28.8% |
| Current drawdown | -10.9% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.5% | 43.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FCX or MT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against FCX's 47. The edge comes from value and momentum. FCX is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 FCX or MT the better buy right now?
MT 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MT over FCX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MT leads Value by 27 points; FCX leads Quality by 16 points; MT leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FCX or MT?
Analyst price targets imply +3.1% upside for FCX and -6.3% for MT, so the Street currently favors FCX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MT. 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, FCX or MT?
MT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, FCX or MT?
MT 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, FCX or MT?
MT on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, FCX or MT?
MT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MT 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 FCX more profitable than MT?
FCX leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 26.8% vs 9.6%; operating margin 26.7% vs 4.3%; ttm roe 15.3% vs 3.3%.
Is MT's lead over FCX getting stronger or weaker?
MT lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when FCX moved ahead of MT.
What would change the FCX vs MT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCX closes the Value gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to MT's edge; FCX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 FCX and MT?
FCX: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MT: 3 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 FCX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FCX and MT 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.