LI vs RIVN Stock Comparison
Compare LI and RIVN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LI and RIVN?
LI leads the current stock comparison as Li Auto Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Li Auto Inc. vs Rivian Automotive, Inc.
LI leads
LI leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support LI, and its lead is narrowing.
Li Auto Inc.
Rivian Automotive, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LI over RIVN, 46 versus 34 as of Sep 6, 2026. LI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while RIVN holds the stronger momentum profile. LI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. LI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Li Auto Inc. and Rivian Automotive, 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 LI and RIVN 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.
- Value30%60 vs 34LI +26
- Risk Resilience15%57 vs 41LI +16
- Quality30%29 vs 18LI +11
- Momentum25%41 vs 48RIVN +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor LI. LI’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; RIVN keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
LI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LI and RIVN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LI (Li Auto Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
RIVN (Rivian Automotive, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.1% against 31.7%.
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
LILI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
LILI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
LILI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
RIVNRIVN on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
LILI on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
LILI 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 | LI | RIVN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.5% | +7.3% | LI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.5% | +53.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LI | 46 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | LIon balance | revenue growth 12% vs 20.1%; EPS growth 25.4% vs -90.9%; TTM ROE -6.5% vs -67.5%; gross margin 13.6% vs 7.5%; operating margin -6.6% vs -60.1% — LI takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | LI | Value 60 vs 34 |
| Technicals | RIVN | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -4.6%; vs 200-day -22.5% vs -3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | LI | Risk Resilience 57 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | LI | Target upside 33.5% vs 7.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LI and RIVN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 LI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5LI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LI +12
- 46 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- LI +14
- 45 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- LI +16
- 46 vs 30
- 90 sessions ago
- LI +1
- 42 vs 41
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.17%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.33%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.46%)
RIVN 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.57%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.07%, 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.
- 1RIVN closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to LI's edge.
- 2RIVN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3LI starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate LI'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
LI leads on balance| Metric | LI | RIVN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12% | 20.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25.4% | -90.9% |
| Gross margin | 13.6% | 7.5% |
| Operating margin | -6.6% | -60.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.5% | -67.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 1.04 |
Performance
RIVN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LI | RIVN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.1% | -2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.5% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.9% | -3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.9% | 2.4% |
| Year to date | -26.9% | -20.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.7% | 9% |
Technicals
RIVN has the stronger structure| Metric | LI | RIVN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.3 | 57.9 |
| ADX (14) | 10.5 | 10.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.5% | -3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.7% | 47.1% |
Risk
LI is the more resilient| Metric | LI | RIVN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 2.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.67 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.83 | 0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -56% | -42.5% |
| Current drawdown | -53.6% | -29.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.8% | 71.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -6.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LI or RIVN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 46 against RIVN's 34. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. RIVN is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 LI or RIVN the better buy right now?
LI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor LI over RIVN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. LI leads Value by 26 points; LI leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; LI leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LI or RIVN?
Analyst price targets imply +33.5% upside for LI and +7.3% for RIVN, so the Street currently favors LI. 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, LI or RIVN?
LI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. LI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, LI or RIVN?
LI 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, LI or RIVN?
RIVN on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, LI or RIVN?
LI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. LI on Risk Resilience, by 16 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is LI more profitable than RIVN?
LI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 13.6% vs 7.5%; operating margin -6.6% vs -60.1%; ttm roe -6.5% vs -67.5%.
Is LI's lead over RIVN getting stronger or weaker?
LI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LI vs RIVN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RIVN closes the Value gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to LI's edge; RIVN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; LI starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 12-point move would eliminate LI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LI and RIVN?
LI: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. RIVN: 1 bullish / 1 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 LI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On RIVN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare LI and RIVN with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.