GEVO vs JKS Stock Comparison
Compare GEVO and JKS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GEVO and JKS?
GEVO leads the current stock comparison as Gevo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gevo, Inc. vs JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
GEVO leads
GEVO leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GEVO, and its lead is widening.
Gevo, Inc.
JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEVO over JKS, 51 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while JKS holds the stronger value profile. GEVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEVO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gevo, 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 GEVO 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.
- Quality40 vs 2GEVO +38
- Momentum60 vs 24GEVO +36
- Risk Resilience52 vs 31GEVO +21
- Value55 vs 65JKS +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GEVO. GEVO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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 +16
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
GEVO's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEVO and JKS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
JKS (JinkoSolar Holding Co., Ltd.): the counter-case, on value, valuation.
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
GEVOGEVO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JKSJKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
GEVOGEVO on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
GEVOGEVO on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
GEVOGEVO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | GEVO | JKS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +77.7% | +61.6% | GEVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.3% | +70.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 31 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -7.2% vs -48.8%; TTM ROE -51.4% vs -21.5%; gross margin 42.9% vs 4.8%; operating margin -104.5% vs -7% |
| Valuation | JKS | Value 55 vs 65 |
| Technicals | GEVO | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -24.7%; vs 200-day -15.2% vs -46.4% |
| Risk Resilience | GEVO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | GEVO | Target upside 77.7% vs 61.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEVO 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)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEVO +20
- 51 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- GEVO +20
- 51 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- GEVO +6
- 50 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- GEVO +16
- 47 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.
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
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
JKS is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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).
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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge.
- 2JKS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
Split| Metric | GEVO | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.2% | -48.8% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 4.8% |
| Operating margin | -104.5% | -7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -51.4% | -21.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | 3.4 |
Performance
GEVO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GEVO | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -28.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6% | -33.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.3% | -51.4% |
| Year to date | -21% | -52.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.7% | -52.6% |
Technicals
GEVO has the stronger structure| Metric | GEVO | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.4 | 14.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 34.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -24.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.2% | -46.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.8% | 59.4% |
Risk
GEVO is the more resilient| Metric | GEVO | JKS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 1.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | -0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.36 | -1.49 |
| Max drawdown | -49.5% | -61.8% |
| Current drawdown | -43.1% | -61.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.4% | 62.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -6.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEVO or JKS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against JKS's 31. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 GEVO or JKS the better buy right now?
GEVO 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 GEVO over JKS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEVO leads Quality by 38 points; GEVO leads Momentum by 36 points; GEVO leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEVO or JKS?
Analyst price targets imply +77.7% upside for GEVO and +61.6% for JKS, so the Street currently favors GEVO. 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, GEVO or JKS?
JKS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 JKS?
GEVO 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 JKS?
GEVO on the Momentum factor, by 36 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 JKS?
GEVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEVO on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 JKS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.9% vs 4.8%; operating margin -104.5% vs -7%; ttm roe -51.4% vs -21.5%. GEVO leads on one measure and JKS 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 JKS getting stronger or weaker?
GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 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 GEVO 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 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge; JKS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GEVO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GEVO and JKS?
GEVO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 GEVO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On JKS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GEVO 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.