GEVO vs NEE Stock Comparison
Compare GEVO and NEE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GEVO and NEE?
GEVO leads the current stock comparison as Gevo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gevo, Inc. vs NextEra Energy, Inc.
GEVO leads
GEVO leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GEVO, and its lead is widening.
Gevo, Inc.
NextEra Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEVO over NEE, 51 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while NEE holds the stronger quality profile. GEVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Gevo, Inc. and NextEra Energy, Inc. 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 NEE 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.
- Momentum60 vs 30GEVO +30
- Value55 vs 38GEVO +17
- Quality40 vs 48NEE +8
- Risk Resilience52 vs 56NEE +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GEVO. GEVO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; NEE keeps a meaningful quality 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 +2
No new signals fired.
GEVO's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GEVO and NEE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
NEE (NextEra Energy, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
NEENEE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEVOGEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
GEVOGEVO on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
NEENEE on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 | NEE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +77.7% | +26.8% | GEVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +66.3% | +25.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 42 |
| Fundamentals | NEE | revenue growth 8.3% vs 8.3%; EPS growth -7.2% vs 43.8%; TTM ROE -51.4% vs 16.8%; gross margin 42.9% vs 71.8%; operating margin -104.5% vs 29.5% |
| Valuation | GEVO | Value 55 vs 38 |
| Technicals | NEE | Price vs 50-day -0.3% vs -4.5%; vs 200-day -15.2% vs -6.1% |
| Risk Resilience | NEE | Risk Resilience 52 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | GEVO | Target upside 77.7% vs 26.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GEVO and NEE 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 9 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEVO +9
- 51 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- GEVO +10
- 51 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- NEE +10
- 47 vs 57
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when GEVO moved ahead of NEE.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.81%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
NEE 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.16%, 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.
- 1NEE closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge.
- 2NEE'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
NEE leads on balance| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 8.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.2% | 43.8% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 71.8% |
| Operating margin | -104.5% | 29.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -51.4% | 16.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | 1.93 |
Performance
NEE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | -0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | -3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6% | -3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.3% | -10.1% |
| Year to date | -21% | 2.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.7% | 18.2% |
Technicals
NEE has the stronger structure| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.4 | 35.6 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 22.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.3% | -4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.2% | -6.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.8% | 13.2% |
Risk
NEE is the more resilient| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.23 | 0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.36 | 1.03 |
| Max drawdown | -49.5% | -16.4% |
| Current drawdown | -43.1% | -15.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.4% | 21.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.9% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GEVO or NEE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against NEE's 42. The edge comes from momentum and value. NEE is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 NEE 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 NEE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEVO leads Momentum by 30 points; GEVO leads Value by 17 points; NEE leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GEVO or NEE?
Analyst price targets imply +77.7% upside for GEVO and +26.8% for NEE, 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 NEE?
GEVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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 NEE?
NEE 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 NEE?
GEVO on the Momentum factor, by 30 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 NEE?
NEE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NEE on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 NEE?
NEE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.9% vs 71.8%; operating margin -104.5% vs 29.5%; ttm roe -51.4% vs 16.8%.
Is GEVO's lead over NEE getting stronger or weaker?
GEVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when GEVO moved ahead of NEE.
What would change the GEVO vs NEE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NEE closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEVO's edge; NEE'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 NEE?
GEVO: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. NEE: 1 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 GEVO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NEE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GEVO and NEE 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.