FUBO vs WBD Stock Comparison
WBD currently leads FUBO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 39. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while FUBO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FUBO and WBD?
WBD leads the current stock comparison as Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
fuboTV Inc. vs Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.
WBD leads
WBD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FUBO on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support WBD, and its lead is narrowing.
fuboTV Inc.
Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WBD over FUBO, 44 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. WBD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while FUBO holds the stronger value profile. WBD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FUBO. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WBD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. WBD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare fuboTV Inc. and Warner Bros. Discovery, 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 FUBO and WBD 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.
- Risk Resilience27 vs 47WBD +20
- Value63 vs 52FUBO +11
- Quality26 vs 35WBD +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor WBD. WBD’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
WBD's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FUBO and WBD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WBD (Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
FUBO (fuboTV Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 39.4%.
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
WBDWBD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WBDWBD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FUBOFUBO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WBDWBD on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
FUBOFUBO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WBD, analyst targets favor FUBO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FUBO | WBD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +417.2% | +9.5% | FUBO has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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 WBD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WBD | 39 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | WBD | revenue growth -5.9% vs -2%; EPS growth -265.5% vs 105.1%; TTM ROE -9.1% vs -9.2%; gross margin 7.1% vs 43.4%; operating margin -1.5% vs 5.4% |
| Valuation | FUBO | Value 63 vs 52 |
| Technicals | WBD | Price vs 50-day -17.7% vs 0%; vs 200-day -36.7% vs 11.8% |
| Risk Resilience | WBD | Risk Resilience 27 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | FUBO | Target upside 417.2% vs 9.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FUBO and WBD 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 WBD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WBD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WBD +5
- 39 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- WBD +7
- 37 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- WBD +16
- 37 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- WBD +12
- 47 vs 59
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
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 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
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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).
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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBD's edge.
- 2FUBO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WBD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate WBD'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
WBD leads on balance| Metric | FUBO | WBD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -5.9% | -2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -265.5% | 105.1% |
| Gross margin | 7.1% | 43.4% |
| Operating margin | -1.5% | 5.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -9.1% | -9.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.5 | 0.98 |
Performance
WBD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | FUBO | WBD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | 0.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.9% | 9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.6% | 18.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37% | 12.9% |
| Year to date | -72.8% | 7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -81.4% | 59.9% |
Technicals
WBD has the stronger structure| Metric | FUBO | WBD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.1 | 86 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 43.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.7% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36.7% | 11.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.3% | 39.4% |
Risk
WBD is the more resilient| Metric | FUBO | WBD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.8 | 1.75 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.76 | 3.75 |
| Max drawdown | -83.7% | -15.7% |
| Current drawdown | -83.2% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 78.1% | 27.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.6% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FUBO or WBD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WBD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against FUBO's 39. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 WBD the better buy right now?
WBD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WBD over FUBO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WBD leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; FUBO leads Value by 11 points; WBD leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FUBO or WBD?
Analyst price targets imply +417.2% upside for FUBO and +9.5% for WBD, so the Street currently favors FUBO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WBD. 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, FUBO or WBD?
FUBO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FUBO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 WBD?
WBD 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 WBD?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 WBD?
WBD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WBD 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 FUBO more profitable than WBD?
WBD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 7.1% vs 43.4%; operating margin -1.5% vs 5.4%; ttm roe -9.1% vs -9.2%.
Is WBD's lead over FUBO getting stronger or weaker?
WBD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 5 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 WBD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FUBO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to WBD's edge; FUBO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WBD starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate WBD's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FUBO and WBD?
FUBO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. WBD: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on FUBO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FUBO and WBD 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.