KALU vs RIO Stock Comparison
RIO currently leads KALU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 45. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while KALU has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between KALU and RIO?
RIO leads the current stock comparison as Rio Tinto Group, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation vs Rio Tinto Group
RIO leads
RIO leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from KALU. Wall Street currently favors KALU on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RIO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation
Rio Tinto Group
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIO over KALU, 50 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. RIO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while KALU holds the stronger value profile. RIO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors KALU. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. RIO lead: Reversed — KALU led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RIO now leads by 5.
Compare Kaiser Aluminum Corporation and Rio Tinto Group 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 KALU and RIO 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 Resilience41 vs 63RIO +22
- Value73 vs 59KALU +14
- Quality43 vs 56RIO +13
- Momentum18 vs 24RIO +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RIO. RIO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; KALU 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: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
RIO's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KALU and RIO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RIO (Rio Tinto Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
KALU (Kaiser Aluminum Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 96% against 23.6%.
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
RIORIO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIORIO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KALUKALU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
RIORIO on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
RIORIO on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
KALUKALU on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RIO, analyst targets favor KALU. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | KALU | RIO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.9% | +19.1% | KALU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.6% | +24.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KALU | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 2.82% | -0.68% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.680 | $3.860 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.080 | $3.730 |
| Years increased | 2 | — |
| No cut in window | Yes | — |
| Cohort rank | #309 | not ranked |
KALU grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 2.82% a year against RIO's -0.68%.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIO | 45 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | RIOon balance | revenue growth -3.4% vs 1.2%; EPS growth -67.9% vs 23.1%; TTM ROE 24.1% vs 18.9%; gross margin 10.7% vs 27.3%; operating margin 7.7% vs 27.3% — RIO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KALU | Value 73 vs 59 |
| Technicals | RIO | Price vs 50-day -22.5% vs -14.8%; vs 200-day -21.2% vs -10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | RIO | Risk Resilience 41 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | KALU | Target upside 51.9% vs 19.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KALU and RIO 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 narrow at 5 points. (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)
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 RIO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28RIO lead: Reversed — KALU led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RIO now leads by 5.
- Today
- RIO +5
- 45 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- RIO +6
- 43 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- KALU +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- RIO +16
- 45 vs 61
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when RIO moved ahead of KALU.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only KALU
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.80%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
Only RIO
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakdown, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
RIO 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.96%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.63%, 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.
- 1KALU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge.
- 2KALU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
RIO leads on balance| Metric | KALU | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -3.4% | 1.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -67.9% | 23.1% |
| Gross margin | 10.7% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.7% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.1% | 18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.09 | 0.35 |
Performance
RIO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | KALU | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -21.5% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.6% | -8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.3% | -11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30% | -10.9% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.2% | 21.8% |
Technicals
RIO has the stronger structure| Metric | KALU | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.9 | 26.1 |
| ADX (14) | 20.9 | 29.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -22.5% | -14.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.2% | -10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 96% | 23.6% |
Risk
RIO is the more resilient| Metric | KALU | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2 | 1.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | 0.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.79 | 0.94 |
| Max drawdown | -46.1% | -25.5% |
| Current drawdown | -38.2% | -23.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.7% | 30.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KALU or RIO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against KALU's 45. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. KALU 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 KALU or RIO the better buy right now?
RIO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RIO over KALU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIO leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; KALU leads Value by 14 points; RIO leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KALU or RIO?
Analyst price targets imply +51.9% upside for KALU and +19.1% for RIO, so the Street currently favors KALU. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RIO. 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, KALU or RIO?
KALU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KALU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, KALU or RIO?
RIO 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, KALU or RIO?
RIO on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, KALU or RIO?
RIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIO on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 KALU more profitable than RIO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 10.7% vs 27.3%; operating margin 7.7% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 24.1% vs 18.9%. KALU leads on one measure and RIO 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 RIO's lead over KALU getting stronger or weaker?
RIO lead: Reversed — KALU led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RIO now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when RIO moved ahead of KALU.
What would change the KALU vs RIO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KALU closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge; KALU's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 KALU and RIO?
KALU: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. RIO: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 KALU is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RIO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare KALU and RIO 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.