FCX vs RIO Stock Comparison
RIO currently leads FCX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while FCX has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FCX and RIO?
RIO leads the current stock comparison as Rio Tinto Group, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Freeport-McMoRan Inc. vs Rio Tinto Group
RIO leads
RIO leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RIO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Freeport-McMoRan Inc.
Rio Tinto Group
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIO over FCX, 50 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. RIO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while FCX holds the stronger momentum profile. RIO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RIO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Freeport-McMoRan Inc. and Rio Tinto Group across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare FCX and RIO 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 59RIO +25
- Momentum34 vs 24FCX +10
- Quality50 vs 56RIO +6
- Risk Resilience57 vs 63RIO +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RIO. RIO’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; FCX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
RIO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FCX and RIO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RIO (Rio Tinto Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
FCX (Freeport-McMoRan Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 35.1% against 23.6%.
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
RIORIO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
RIORIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
FCXFCX on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
RIORIO on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | FCX | RIO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.6% | +19.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +55.3% | +24.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FCX | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 24.57% | -0.68% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.050 | $3.860 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.150 | $3.730 |
| Years increased | — | — |
| No cut in window | — | — |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | not ranked |
FCX grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 24.57% a year against RIO's -0.68%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIO | 42 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | RIOon balance | revenue growth 12.8% vs 1.2%; EPS growth 11.5% vs 23.1%; TTM ROE 15.3% vs 18.9%; gross margin 26.8% vs 27.3%; operating margin 26.7% vs 27.3% — RIO takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RIO | Value 34 vs 59 |
| Technicals | FCX | Price vs 50-day -13% vs -14.8%; vs 200-day 2.2% vs -10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | RIO | Risk Resilience 57 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 18.6% vs 19.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FCX and RIO 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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 RIO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28RIO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RIO +8
- 42 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- RIO +8
- 41 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- RIO +7
- 54 vs 61
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
Only FCX
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.20%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.72%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only RIO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.30%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
RIO 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.55%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.63%, AIQ 0 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge.
- 2FCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
RIO leads on balance| Metric | FCX | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.8% | 1.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | 23.1% |
| Gross margin | 26.8% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 26.7% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.3% | 18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.52 | 0.35 |
Performance
FCX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FCX | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.3% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5% | -11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17% | -10.9% |
| Year to date | 31.1% | 7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 61% | 21.8% |
Technicals
FCX has the stronger structure| Metric | FCX | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.9 | 26.1 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13% | -14.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.2% | -10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.1% | 23.6% |
Risk
RIO is the more resilient| Metric | FCX | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.21 | 1.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.17 | 0.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.72 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -24.3% | -25.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16.7% | -23.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.6% | 30.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FCX or RIO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against FCX's 42. The edge comes from value and quality. FCX 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 FCX or RIO the better buy right now?
RIO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 RIO over FCX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIO leads Value by 25 points; FCX leads Momentum by 10 points; RIO leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FCX or RIO?
Analyst price targets imply +18.6% upside for FCX and +19.1% for RIO. 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, FCX or RIO?
RIO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RIO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 RIO?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 RIO?
FCX on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 RIO?
RIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIO on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 FCX more profitable than RIO?
RIO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 26.8% vs 27.3%; operating margin 26.7% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 15.3% vs 18.9%.
Is RIO's lead over FCX getting stronger or weaker?
RIO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FCX vs RIO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FCX closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge; FCX's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 RIO?
FCX: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RIO: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 RIO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FCX and RIO 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.