GEVO vs NEE Stock Comparison
NEE currently leads GEVO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum, while GEVO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GEVO and NEE?
NEE leads the current stock comparison as NextEra Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Gevo, Inc. vs NextEra Energy, Inc.
NEE leads
NEE leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from GEVO. Wall Street currently favors GEVO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NEE, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Gevo, Inc.
NextEra Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NEE over GEVO, 52 versus 43 as of Oct 31, 2026. NEE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while GEVO holds the stronger value profile. NEE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GEVO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NEE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NEE lead: Reversed — GEVO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NEE now leads by 9.
Compare Gevo, Inc. and NextEra Energy, Inc. 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 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.
- Momentum28 vs 70NEE +42
- Value55 vs 38GEVO +17
- Quality40 vs 51NEE +11
- Risk Resilience53 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NEE. NEE’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; GEVO keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
NEE's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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
NEE (NextEra Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
GEVO (Gevo, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.9% against 22.7%.
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
NEENEE 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
NEENEE on the Momentum factor, by 42 points.
Lower downside
NEENEE carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GEVOGEVO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NEE, analyst targets favor GEVO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GEVO | NEE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +104% | +17.2% | GEVO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.5% | +62.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 11 | 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 NEE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NEE | 43 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | NEEon balance | revenue growth 8.3% vs 7.4%; EPS growth -7.2% vs 51.7%; TTM ROE -51.4% vs 20.4%; gross margin 42.9% vs 62.4%; operating margin -104.5% vs 29.7% — NEE takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEVO | Value 55 vs 38 |
| Technicals | NEE | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -29.3% vs -7.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | GEVO | Target upside 104% vs 17.2% |
✓ 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 NEE.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28NEE lead: Reversed — GEVO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NEE now leads by 9.
- Today
- NEE +9
- 43 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- NEE +8
- 44 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- GEVO +2
- 43 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 53 vs 53
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when NEE moved ahead of GEVO.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only GEVO
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NEE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
NEE 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.31%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.91%, 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.
- 1GEVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to NEE's edge.
- 2GEVO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NEE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
NEE leads on balance| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.3% | 7.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.2% | 51.7% |
| Gross margin | 42.9% | 62.4% |
| Operating margin | -104.5% | 29.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -51.4% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | 1.85 |
Performance
NEE leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.9% | 3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.2% | 7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -20.3% | -7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -35.8% | -14% |
| Year to date | -39% | 0.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -50.6% | -4% |
Technicals
NEE has the stronger structure| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.1 | 65.8 |
| ADX (14) | 38.7 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.3% | -7.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.9% | 22.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GEVO | NEE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.91 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.81 | -0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.22 | -0.34 |
| Max drawdown | -60% | -22.9% |
| Current drawdown | -56% | -17.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.7% | 21% |
| 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, NEE is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against GEVO's 43. The edge comes from momentum and quality. GEVO 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 NEE the better buy right now?
NEE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 NEE over GEVO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NEE leads Momentum by 42 points; GEVO leads Value by 17 points; NEE leads Quality by 11 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 +104% upside for GEVO and +17.2% for NEE, so the Street currently favors GEVO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NEE. 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 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?
NEE on the Momentum factor, by 42 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 carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 62.4%; operating margin -104.5% vs 29.7%; ttm roe -51.4% vs 20.4%.
Is NEE's lead over GEVO getting stronger or weaker?
NEE lead: Reversed — GEVO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; NEE now leads by 9. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when NEE moved ahead of GEVO.
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: GEVO closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to NEE's edge; GEVO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NEE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 GEVO and NEE?
GEVO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NEE: 1 bullish / 1 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.