FSLR vs JKS Stock Comparison
Compare FSLR and JKS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FSLR and JKS?
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
First Solar, Inc. vs JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
FSLR leads
FSLR leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors JKS on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FSLR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
First Solar, Inc.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FSLR over JKS, 51 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. FSLR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while JKS 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 JKS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FSLR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare First Solar, Inc. and JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd. 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 FSLR 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.
- Quality68 vs 2FSLR +66
- Value45 vs 65JKS +20
- Risk Resilience51 vs 31FSLR +20
- Momentum38 vs 24FSLR +14
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FSLR. FSLR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; JKS 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 +9
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FSLR's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FSLR and JKS 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.
JKS (JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 59.4% against 37.2%.
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
JKSJKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
FSLRFSLR on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
FSLRFSLR on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FSLR, analyst targets favor JKS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FSLR | JKS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26.6% | +61.6% | JKS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48.4% | +70.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 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
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 | 51 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | FSLR | revenue growth 1.1% vs 0.6%; EPS growth 21.7% vs -48.8%; TTM ROE 18% vs -21.5%; gross margin 44% vs 4.8%; operating margin 33.6% vs -7% |
| Valuation | JKS | Value 45 vs 65 |
| Technicals | FSLR | Price vs 50-day -3.8% vs -24.7%; vs 200-day -9.9% vs -46.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FSLR | Risk Resilience 51 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | JKS | Target upside 26.6% vs 61.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FSLR and JKS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FSLR +20
- 51 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- FSLR +18
- 49 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- FSLR +15
- 59 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- FSLR +19
- 50 vs 31
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.79%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.79%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (45.84%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.9%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.97%, 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 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge.
- 2JKS'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 2 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 | FSLR | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.1% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.7% | -48.8% |
| Gross margin | 44% | 4.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.6% | -7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18% | -21.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 3.4 |
Performance
FSLR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FSLR | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.6% | -28.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.9% | -33.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.5% | -51.4% |
| Year to date | -20.7% | -52.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.9% | -52.6% |
Technicals
FSLR has the stronger structure| Metric | FSLR | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 14.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.5 | 34.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.8% | -24.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.9% | -46.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.2% | 59.4% |
Risk
FSLR is the more resilient| Metric | FSLR | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.72 | 1.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | -0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.35 | -1.49 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -61.8% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -61.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.1% | 62.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -6.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FSLR or JKS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FSLR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against JKS's 31. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. JKS 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 FSLR or JKS the better buy right now?
FSLR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FSLR over JKS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FSLR leads Quality by 66 points; JKS leads Value by 20 points; FSLR leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FSLR or JKS?
Analyst price targets imply +26.6% upside for FSLR and +61.6% for JKS, so the Street currently favors JKS. 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, FSLR or JKS?
JKS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, FSLR or JKS?
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, FSLR or JKS?
FSLR on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, FSLR or JKS?
FSLR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FSLR on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 FSLR more profitable than JKS?
FSLR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44% vs 4.8%; operating margin 33.6% vs -7%; ttm roe 18% vs -21.5%.
Is FSLR's lead over JKS getting stronger or weaker?
FSLR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FSLR 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 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to FSLR's edge; JKS'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 2 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 FSLR and JKS?
FSLR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. JKS: 1 bullish / 5 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 FSLR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JKS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FSLR 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.