CF vs IAG Stock Comparison
Compare CF and IAG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CF and IAG?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs Iamgold Corporation
CF leads
CF leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from IAG. Wall Street currently favors IAG on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
Iamgold Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over IAG, 70 versus 62 as of Sep 11, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. CF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IAG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CF lead: Reversed — IAG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and Iamgold Corporation 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 CF and IAG 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 Resilience52 vs 34CF +18
- Momentum75 vs 59CF +16
- Value64 vs 61Even
- Quality80 vs 79Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
CF's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and IAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
IAG (Iamgold Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 59.3% against 38.1%.
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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CFCF on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
CFCF on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
IAGIAG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor IAG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | IAG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.7% | +8.6% | IAG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.7% | +18.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 3 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CF | 70 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | CFon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs -18.9%; EPS growth 18.8% vs -40%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 28.1%; gross margin 42.5% vs 49.9%; operating margin 38.1% vs 47.1% — CF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 64 vs 61 |
| Technicals | CF | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs 16.7%; vs 200-day 24% vs 12% |
| Risk Resilience | CF | Risk Resilience 52 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | IAG | Target upside -4.7% vs 8.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and IAG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CF lead: Reversed — IAG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8.
- Today
- CF +8
- 70 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +7
- 71 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- IAG +3
- 64 vs 67
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +16
- 70 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when CF moved ahead of IAG.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
IAG 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.51%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.85%, 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.
- 1IAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2IAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CF leads on balance| Metric | CF | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | -18.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | -40% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 49.9% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 47.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 28.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 0.12 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CF | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.6% | 11.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.7% | 35.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.5% | -7.9% |
| Year to date | 74.7% | 21.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | 99.3% |
Technicals
CF has the stronger structure| Metric | CF | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.4 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | 16.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | 12% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.1% | 59.3% |
Risk
CF is the more resilient| Metric | CF | IAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.92 | 2.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 1.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 2 | 2.05 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -43.3% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -18.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.9% | 65.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or IAG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against IAG's 62. 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 CF or IAG the better buy right now?
CF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CF over IAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; CF leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or IAG?
Analyst price targets imply -4.7% upside for CF and +8.6% for IAG, so the Street currently favors IAG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, CF or IAG?
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, CF or IAG?
CF 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, CF or IAG?
CF on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, CF or IAG?
CF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CF on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 CF more profitable than IAG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.5% vs 49.9%; operating margin 38.1% vs 47.1%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 28.1%. CF leads on one measure and IAG 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 CF's lead over IAG getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Reversed — IAG led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CF now leads by 8. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when CF moved ahead of IAG.
What would change the CF vs IAG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IAG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; IAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CF and IAG?
CF: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. IAG: 1 bullish / 2 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 CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IAG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CF and IAG 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.