FUBO vs NWS Stock Comparison
NWS currently leads FUBO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 39. The clearest difference is momentum, while FUBO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FUBO and NWS?
NWS leads the current stock comparison as News Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
fuboTV Inc. vs News Corporation
NWS leads
NWS leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support NWS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
fuboTV Inc.
News Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NWS over FUBO, 58 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. NWS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while FUBO holds the stronger value profile. NWS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor NWS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NWS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare fuboTV Inc. and News Corporation 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 FUBO and NWS 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.
- Momentum32 vs 79NWS +47
- Risk Resilience27 vs 70NWS +43
- Quality26 vs 57NWS +31
- Value63 vs 36FUBO +27
4 of 5 evidence groups favor NWS. NWS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; FUBO keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +13
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
NWS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FUBO and NWS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NWS (News Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
FUBO (fuboTV Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 21.9%.
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
NWSNWS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NWSNWS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FUBOFUBO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 points.
Momentum
NWSNWS on the Momentum factor, by 47 points.
Lower downside
NWSNWS on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 | FUBO | NWS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +417.2% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor NWS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NWS | 39 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | NWS | revenue growth -5.9% vs 7%; EPS growth -265.5% vs 106.3%; TTM ROE -9.1% vs 6.6%; gross margin 7.1% vs 56.9%; operating margin -1.5% vs 11.4% |
| Valuation | FUBO | Value 63 vs 36 |
| Technicals | NWS | Price vs 50-day -17.7% vs 0.7%; vs 200-day -36.7% vs 10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | NWS | Risk Resilience 27 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FUBO and NWS 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 NWS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NWS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NWS +19
- 39 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- NWS +20
- 37 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- NWS +10
- 37 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- NWS +7
- 47 vs 54
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only FUBO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (31.49%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.33%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NWS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.98%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
NWS 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 -1.22%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.37%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1FUBO closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWS's edge.
- 2FUBO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NWS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
NWS leads on balance| Metric | FUBO | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.9% | 7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -265.5% | 106.3% |
| Gross margin | 7.1% | 56.9% |
| Operating margin | -1.5% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -9.1% | 6.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.5 | 0.34 |
Performance
NWS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FUBO | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 2.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.9% | 3.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37% | 9.8% |
| Year to date | -72.8% | 12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -81.4% | 12.5% |
Technicals
NWS has the stronger structure| Metric | FUBO | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 72.1 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 17.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.7% | 0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36.7% | 10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.3% | 21.9% |
Risk
NWS is the more resilient| Metric | FUBO | NWS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | 0.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.76 | 0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -83.7% | -17.7% |
| Current drawdown | -83.2% | -5.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 78.1% | 26.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.6% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FUBO or NWS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NWS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against FUBO's 39. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. FUBO 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 FUBO or NWS the better buy right now?
NWS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 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 NWS over FUBO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NWS leads Momentum by 47 points; NWS leads Risk Resilience by 43 points; NWS leads Quality by 31 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FUBO or NWS?
Analyst price targets imply +417.2% upside for FUBO and not covered for NWS. 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, FUBO or NWS?
FUBO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FUBO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 27 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, FUBO or NWS?
NWS 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, FUBO or NWS?
NWS on the Momentum factor, by 47 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, FUBO or NWS?
NWS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWS on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 FUBO more profitable than NWS?
NWS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 7.1% vs 56.9%; operating margin -1.5% vs 11.4%; ttm roe -9.1% vs 6.6%.
Is NWS's lead over FUBO getting stronger or weaker?
NWS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the FUBO vs NWS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FUBO closes the Momentum gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWS's edge; FUBO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NWS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 FUBO and NWS?
FUBO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. NWS: 4 bullish / 2 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 FUBO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NWS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FUBO and NWS 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.