HUT vs NBIS Stock Comparison
Compare HUT and NBIS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HUT and NBIS?
NBIS leads the current stock comparison as Nebius Group N.V., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Hut 8 Corp. vs Nebius Group N.V.
NBIS leads
NBIS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HUT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support NBIS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Hut 8 Corp.
Nebius Group N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NBIS over HUT, 47 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. NBIS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. NBIS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HUT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NBIS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. NBIS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hut 8 Corp. and Nebius Group N.V. 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 HUT and NBIS 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 Resilience24 vs 44NBIS +20
- Momentum57 vs 70NBIS +13
- Quality37 vs 43NBIS +6
- Value34 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor NBIS. NBIS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 -23
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
NBIS's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HUT and NBIS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NBIS (Nebius Group N.V.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
HUT (Hut 8 Corp.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 94.4% against 80.9%.
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
NBISNBIS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
HUTHUT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
NBISNBIS on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
NBISNBIS on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
HUTHUT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NBIS, analyst targets favor HUT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HUT | NBIS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51% | +9.6% | HUT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +122.9% | +114.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 8 | 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 NBIS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NBIS | 39 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 5.5% vs 45.9%; EPS growth 35.9% vs -128.3%; gross margin 25.3% vs 58.6%; operating margin -31.1% vs -49.3% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | NBIS | Price vs 50-day 4.5% vs 6%; vs 200-day 19.2% vs 45.3% |
| Risk Resilience | NBIS | Risk Resilience 24 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | HUT | Target upside 51% vs 9.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HUT and NBIS 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 8 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)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 NBIS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NBIS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NBIS +8
- 39 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- NBIS +1
- 39 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- NBIS +20
- 32 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- NBIS +5
- 30 vs 35
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when NBIS moved ahead of HUT.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.20%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.83%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (34.89%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +8.83%, AIQ -6 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.56%, 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.
- 1HUT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to NBIS's edge.
- 2HUT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NBIS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate NBIS'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
Split| Metric | HUT | NBIS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.5% | 45.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 35.9% | -128.3% |
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 58.6% |
| Operating margin | -31.1% | -49.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -39.5% | 0.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.31 | 0.97 |
Performance
NBIS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | HUT | NBIS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.3% | 11.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.2% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.3% | 7.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 77.2% | 103.7% |
| Year to date | 97.2% | 172.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 255.6% | 256.1% |
Technicals
NBIS has the stronger structure| Metric | HUT | NBIS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.7 | 53.6 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.5% | 6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.2% | 45.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 94.4% | 80.9% |
Risk
NBIS is the more resilient| Metric | HUT | NBIS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 4.45 | 3.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.54 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.72 | 2.49 |
| Max drawdown | -41.7% | -48.3% |
| Current drawdown | -31.9% | -20.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 108.3% | 108.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.7% | -9.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HUT or NBIS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NBIS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against HUT's 39. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 HUT or NBIS the better buy right now?
NBIS 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 NBIS over HUT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NBIS leads Risk Resilience by 20 points; NBIS leads Momentum by 13 points; NBIS leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HUT or NBIS?
Analyst price targets imply +51% upside for HUT and +9.6% for NBIS, so the Street currently favors HUT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NBIS. 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, HUT or NBIS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, HUT or NBIS?
HUT 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, HUT or NBIS?
NBIS on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, HUT or NBIS?
NBIS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NBIS 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 HUT more profitable than NBIS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.3% vs 58.6%; operating margin -31.1% vs -49.3%; ttm roe -39.5% vs 0.9%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 NBIS's lead over HUT getting stronger or weaker?
NBIS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 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 2026-09-09, when NBIS moved ahead of HUT.
What would change the HUT vs NBIS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HUT closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to NBIS's edge; HUT's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NBIS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate NBIS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about HUT and NBIS?
HUT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NBIS: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on HUT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NBIS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare HUT and NBIS 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.