FLNC vs FSLR Stock Comparison
FSLR currently leads FLNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality, while FLNC has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FLNC 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
Fluence Energy, Inc. vs First Solar, Inc.
FSLR leads
FSLR leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FLNC on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FSLR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fluence Energy, Inc.
First Solar, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FSLR over FLNC, 52 versus 36 as of Oct 31, 2026. FSLR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while FLNC holds the stronger value profile. FSLR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FLNC. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSLR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fluence Energy, Inc. and First Solar, 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 FLNC 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.
- Quality18 vs 68FSLR +50
- Risk Resilience28 vs 54FSLR +26
- Value64 vs 45FLNC +19
- Momentum27 vs 42FSLR +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FSLR. FSLR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; FLNC keeps a meaningful value 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 +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, 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.
FSLR's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLNC 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.
FLNC (Fluence Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 71.6% against 34.2%.
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
FLNCFLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
FSLRFSLR on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
FSLRFSLR on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
FLNCFLNC 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 FLNC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FLNC | FSLR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +140.6% | +52.4% | FLNC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +174.4% | +48.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 17 | 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 | 36 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | FSLRon balance | revenue growth 39.8% vs 1.1%; EPS growth -50% vs 21.7%; TTM ROE -20.7% vs 18%; gross margin 9.2% vs 44%; operating margin -4.1% vs 33.6% — FSLR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLNC | Value 64 vs 45 |
| Technicals | FSLR | Price vs 50-day -31.8% vs -8.4%; vs 200-day -60.5% vs -18.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FSLR | Risk Resilience 28 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | FLNC | Target upside 140.6% vs 52.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLNC 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 FSLR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FSLR +16
- 36 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- FSLR +17
- 35 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- FSLR +9
- 39 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- FSLR +16
- 35 vs 51
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only FLNC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only FSLR
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.7%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -6.08%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.41%, 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.
- 1FLNC closes the Quality gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge.
- 2FLNC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FSLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
FSLR leads on balance| Metric | FLNC | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 39.8% | 1.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -50% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | 9.2% | 44% |
| Operating margin | -4.1% | 33.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -20.7% | 18% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 0.02 |
Performance
FSLR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FLNC | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.2% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.4% | 0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -54% | -14.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.7% | -7.5% |
| Year to date | -68.7% | -32.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -68.3% | -27% |
Technicals
FSLR has the stronger structure| Metric | FLNC | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 47.1 |
| ADX (14) | 39.7 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -31.8% | -8.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -60.5% | -18.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 71.6% | 34.2% |
Risk
FSLR is the more resilient| Metric | FLNC | FSLR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.91 | 1.87 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | -0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | -0.54 |
| Max drawdown | -82.9% | -47.2% |
| Current drawdown | -80.8% | -44.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 116% | 54.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.4% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLNC or FSLR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FSLR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against FLNC's 36. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. FLNC is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 FLNC or FSLR the better buy right now?
FSLR 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 FSLR over FLNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSLR leads Quality by 50 points; FSLR leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; FLNC leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLNC or FSLR?
Analyst price targets imply +140.6% upside for FLNC and +52.4% for FSLR, so the Street currently favors FLNC. 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, FLNC or FSLR?
FLNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, FLNC 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, FLNC or FSLR?
FSLR on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, FLNC or FSLR?
FSLR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FSLR on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 FLNC more profitable than FSLR?
FSLR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 9.2% vs 44%; operating margin -4.1% vs 33.6%; ttm roe -20.7% vs 18%.
Is FSLR's lead over FLNC getting stronger or weaker?
FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 16 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 FLNC vs FSLR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLNC closes the Quality gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge; FLNC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FSLR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 FLNC and FSLR?
FLNC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. FSLR: 1 bullish / 3 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 FLNC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FSLR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FLNC 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.