FLNC vs GEVO Stock Comparison
Compare FLNC and GEVO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FLNC and GEVO?
GEVO leads the current stock comparison as Gevo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fluence Energy, Inc. vs Gevo, Inc.
GEVO leads
GEVO leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GEVO.
Fluence Energy, Inc.
Gevo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEVO over FLNC, 51 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while FLNC holds the stronger value profile. GEVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEVO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GEVO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fluence Energy, Inc. and Gevo, 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 FLNC 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.
- Momentum28 vs 60GEVO +32
- Risk Resilience28 vs 52GEVO +24
- Quality18 vs 40GEVO +22
- Value64 vs 55FLNC +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GEVO. GEVO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; FLNC keeps a meaningful value 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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
No new signals fired.
GEVO's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLNC and GEVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FLNC (Fluence Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
FLNCFLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
GEVOGEVO on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
GEVOGEVO on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 | FLNC | GEVO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +77.8% | +77.7% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +113.3% | +66.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | 36 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | FLNCon balance | revenue growth 39.8% vs 8.3%; EPS growth -50% vs -7.2%; TTM ROE -20.7% vs -51.4%; gross margin 9.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin -4.1% vs -104.5% — FLNC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLNC | Value 64 vs 55 |
| Technicals | GEVO | Price vs 50-day -25.2% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day -43.7% vs -15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | GEVO | Risk Resilience 28 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 77.8% vs 77.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLNC 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GEVO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEVO +15
- 36 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- GEVO +16
- 35 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- GEVO +13
- 37 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- GEVO +13
- 34 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when GEVO moved ahead of FLNC.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (35.31%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.75%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FLNC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +2.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.63%, AIQ +4 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 Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge.
- 2FLNC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
FLNC leads on balance| Metric | FLNC | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 39.8% | 8.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -50% | -7.2% |
| Gross margin | 9.2% | 42.9% |
| Operating margin | -4.1% | -104.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -20.7% | -51.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 0.62 |
Performance
GEVO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FLNC | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.2% | -7.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26.6% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -55.2% | 6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -43.4% | -31.3% |
| Year to date | -47.6% | -21% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 34.4% | -3.7% |
Technicals
GEVO has the stronger structure| Metric | FLNC | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.4 | 56.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.1 | 15.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -25.2% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -43.7% | -15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 61.7% | 58.8% |
Risk
GEVO is the more resilient| Metric | FLNC | GEVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 4.28 | 0.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.86 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.5 | 0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -69.9% | -49.5% |
| Current drawdown | -69.9% | -43.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 127.7% | 64.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.5% | -5.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLNC or GEVO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against FLNC's 36. The edge comes from momentum 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 GEVO the better buy right now?
GEVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 FLNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEVO leads Momentum by 32 points; GEVO leads Risk Resilience by 24 points; GEVO leads Quality by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLNC or GEVO?
Analyst price targets imply +77.8% upside for FLNC and +77.7% for 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, FLNC or GEVO?
FLNC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLNC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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 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, FLNC or GEVO?
GEVO on the Momentum factor, by 32 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 GEVO?
GEVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEVO on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 GEVO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 9.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin -4.1% vs -104.5%; ttm roe -20.7% vs -51.4%. FLNC 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 FLNC getting stronger or weaker?
GEVO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-23, when GEVO moved ahead of FLNC.
What would change the FLNC vs GEVO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLNC closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge; FLNC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GEVO?
FLNC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. GEVO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 GEVO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FLNC 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.