FLNC vs JKS Stock Comparison
FLNC currently leads JKS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 36 vs 34. The clearest difference is quality, while JKS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FLNC and JKS?
FLNC leads the current stock comparison as Fluence Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fluence Energy, Inc. vs JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
FLNC leads
FLNC leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JKS on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support FLNC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fluence Energy, Inc.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLNC over JKS, 36 versus 34 as of Oct 31, 2026. FLNC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while JKS holds the stronger momentum profile. FLNC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JKS. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLNC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FLNC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fluence Energy, Inc. and JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. 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 FLNC and JKS 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 2FLNC +16
- Momentum27 vs 35JKS +8
- Risk Resilience28 vs 36JKS +8
- Value64 vs 65Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor FLNC. FLNC’s edge is concentrated in quality; JKS 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 +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.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
FLNC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLNC and JKS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLNC (Fluence Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
JKS (JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals.
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
FLNCFLNC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FLNCFLNC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
JKSJKS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
JKSJKS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
JKSJKS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FLNC, analyst targets favor JKS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FLNC | JKS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +140.6% | +142.2% | JKS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +174.4% | +103.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 4 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLNC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 36 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | FLNCon balance | EPS growth -50% vs -48.8%; TTM ROE -20.7% vs -21.5%; gross margin 9.2% vs 4.8%; operating margin -4.1% vs -7% — FLNC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 64 vs 65 |
| Technicals | JKS | Price vs 50-day -31.8% vs -19.1%; vs 200-day -60.5% vs -57.1% |
| Risk Resilience | JKS | Risk Resilience 28 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | JKS | Target upside 140.6% vs 142.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLNC and JKS 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 FLNC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FLNC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLNC +2
- 36 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- FLNC +3
- 35 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- FLNC +8
- 39 vs 31
- 90 sessions ago
- FLNC +4
- 35 vs 31
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 11 when FLNC moved ahead of JKS.
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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only JKS
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
FLNC 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 +4.86%, 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.
- 1JKS closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLNC's edge.
- 2JKS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FLNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate FLNC's advantage entirely.
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 | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 39.8% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -50% | -48.8% |
| Gross margin | 9.2% | 4.8% |
| Operating margin | -4.1% | -7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -20.7% | -21.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 3.4 |
Performance
JKS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FLNC | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.2% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -19.4% | -13.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -54% | -44.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.7% | -61.7% |
| Year to date | -68.7% | -68% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -68.3% | -61.7% |
Technicals
JKS has the stronger structure| Metric | FLNC | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 41 |
| ADX (14) | 39.7 | 49.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -31.8% | -19.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -60.5% | -57.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 71.6% | 36.7% |
Risk
JKS is the more resilient| Metric | FLNC | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.91 | 1.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | -1.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.65 | -2.3 |
| Max drawdown | -82.9% | -73.7% |
| Current drawdown | -80.8% | -73% |
| Annualized volatility | 116% | 60.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.4% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLNC or JKS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLNC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 36 against JKS's 34. The edge comes from quality. JKS 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 FLNC or JKS the better buy right now?
FLNC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLNC over JKS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FLNC leads Quality by 16 points; JKS leads Momentum by 8 points; JKS leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLNC or JKS?
Analyst price targets imply +140.6% upside for FLNC and +142.2% for JKS, so the Street currently favors JKS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FLNC. 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 JKS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 JKS?
FLNC 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 JKS?
JKS on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 JKS?
JKS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JKS on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 JKS?
FLNC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 9.2% vs 4.8%; operating margin -4.1% vs -7%; ttm roe -20.7% vs -21.5%.
Is FLNC's lead over JKS getting stronger or weaker?
FLNC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 2 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 2026-08-11, when FLNC moved ahead of JKS.
What would change the FLNC vs JKS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JKS closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLNC's edge; JKS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FLNC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate FLNC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FLNC and JKS?
FLNC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. JKS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 JKS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FLNC and JKS 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.