GEVO vs HYLN Stock Comparison
Compare GEVO and HYLN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GEVO and HYLN?
GEVO leads the current stock comparison as Gevo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gevo, Inc. vs Hyliion Holdings Corp.
GEVO leads
GEVO leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HYLN on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GEVO, and its lead is narrowing.
Gevo, Inc.
Hyliion Holdings Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEVO over HYLN, 51 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while HYLN holds the stronger momentum profile. GEVO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HYLN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEVO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GEVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gevo, Inc. and Hyliion Holdings Corp. 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 GEVO and HYLN 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.
- Value55 vs 34GEVO +21
- Momentum60 vs 75HYLN +15
- Risk Resilience52 vs 40GEVO +12
- Quality40 vs 30GEVO +10
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GEVO. GEVO’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; HYLN keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +16
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
GEVO's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEVO and HYLN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
HYLN (Hyliion Holdings Corp.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 66.2% against 58.8%.
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
GEVOGEVO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HYLNHYLN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEVOGEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
HYLNHYLN on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
GEVOGEVO on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
HYLNHYLN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GEVO, analyst targets favor HYLN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GEVO | HYLN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +77.7% | +143.6% | HYLN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.3% | +10.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 2 | 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
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 | 51 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | HYLNon balance | revenue growth 8.3% vs 74.6%; EPS growth -7.2% vs -14.3%; TTM ROE -51.4% vs -27.9%; gross margin 42.9% vs -54.4%; operating margin -104.5% vs -6.5% — HYLN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEVO | Value 55 vs 34 |
| Technicals | HYLN | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -15.2% vs 22.9% |
| Risk Resilience | GEVO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | HYLN | Target upside 77.7% vs 143.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEVO and HYLN 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GEVO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GEVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEVO +7
- 51 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- GEVO +16
- 51 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- GEVO +12
- 50 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- GEVO +14
- 47 vs 33
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 9 when GEVO moved ahead of HYLN.
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 / 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
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.29%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.63%, AIQ +4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.09%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1HYLN closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge.
- 2HYLN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate GEVO'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
HYLN leads on balance| Metric | GEVO | HYLN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 74.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.2% | -14.3% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | -54.4% |
| Operating margin | -104.5% | -6.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -51.4% | -27.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | 0.02 |
Performance
HYLN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEVO | HYLN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | 7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6% | -44.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.3% | 84.5% |
| Year to date | -21% | 107.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.7% | 131.5% |
Technicals
HYLN has the stronger structure| Metric | GEVO | HYLN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.4 | 65.7 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.2% | 22.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.8% | 66.2% |
Risk
GEVO is the more resilient| Metric | GEVO | HYLN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 2.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.36 | 2.36 |
| Max drawdown | -49.5% | -61.1% |
| Current drawdown | -43.1% | -52.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.4% | 104.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -9.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEVO or HYLN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against HYLN's 44. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. HYLN 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 GEVO or HYLN the better buy right now?
GEVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GEVO over HYLN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEVO leads Value by 21 points; HYLN leads Momentum by 15 points; GEVO leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEVO or HYLN?
Analyst price targets imply +77.7% upside for GEVO and +143.6% for HYLN, so the Street currently favors HYLN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GEVO. 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, GEVO or HYLN?
GEVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, GEVO or HYLN?
HYLN 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, GEVO or HYLN?
HYLN on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, GEVO or HYLN?
GEVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEVO on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 GEVO more profitable than HYLN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.9% vs -54.4%; operating margin -104.5% vs -6.5%; ttm roe -51.4% vs -27.9%. GEVO leads on one measure and HYLN on two measures, 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 HYLN getting stronger or weaker?
GEVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 7 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-09, when GEVO moved ahead of HYLN.
What would change the GEVO vs HYLN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HYLN closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge; HYLN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate GEVO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about GEVO and HYLN?
GEVO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. HYLN: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on GEVO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HYLN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GEVO and HYLN 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.