LUNR vs PONY Stock Comparison
Compare LUNR and PONY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between LUNR and PONY?
LUNR leads the current stock comparison as Intuitive Machines, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Intuitive Machines, Inc. vs Pony AI Inc. American Depositary Shares
LUNR leads
LUNR leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors PONY on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support LUNR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Intuitive Machines, Inc.
Pony AI Inc. American Depositary Shares
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors LUNR over PONY, 43 versus 34 as of Sep 11, 2026. LUNR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while PONY holds the stronger risk resilience profile. LUNR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PONY. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LUNR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. LUNR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Intuitive Machines, Inc. and Pony AI Inc. American Depositary Shares 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 LUNR and PONY 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.
- Quality72 vs 37LUNR +35
- Risk Resilience32 vs 40PONY +8
- Momentum24 vs 27Even
- Value36 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor LUNR. LUNR’s edge is concentrated in quality; PONY keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
LUNR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LUNR and PONY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
LUNR (Intuitive Machines, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
PONY (Pony AI Inc. American Depositary Shares): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
LUNRLUNR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
LUNRLUNR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PONYPONY on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
PONYPONY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors LUNR, analyst targets favor PONY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | LUNR | PONY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +169.5% | +256.7% | PONY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +126.7% | +54.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor LUNR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | LUNR | 43 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | LUNR | revenue growth 10.4% vs 5.8%; EPS growth -16% vs -16.7%; TTM ROE 29.8% vs -10.5%; gross margin 27.3% vs 16.2%; operating margin -27.5% vs -214.1% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 34 |
| Technicals | LUNR | Price vs 50-day -8.3% vs -10.4%; vs 200-day -26.5% vs -39% |
| Risk Resilience | PONY | Risk Resilience 32 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | PONY | Target upside 169.5% vs 256.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LUNR and PONY 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 LUNR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10LUNR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- LUNR +9
- 43 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- LUNR +7
- 43 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- LUNR +13
- 54 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- LUNR +7
- 41 vs 34
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (27.01%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (46.73%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
LUNR 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.85%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.08%, 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.
- 1PONY closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUNR's edge.
- 2PONY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3LUNR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate LUNR'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
LUNR leads on balance| Metric | LUNR | PONY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.4% | 5.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16% | -16.7% |
| Gross margin | 27.3% | 16.2% |
| Operating margin | -27.5% | -214.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.8% | -10.5% |
| Debt to equity | -1.51 | 0.01 |
Performance
LUNR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | LUNR | PONY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.6% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.7% | -19.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -44.9% | -18.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -20.8% | -48.6% |
| Year to date | -9.9% | -54.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 73.2% | -52.6% |
Technicals
LUNR has the stronger structure| Metric | LUNR | PONY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 33.3 |
| ADX (14) | 19.8 | 20.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.3% | -10.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -26.5% | -39% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 71.1% | 55.1% |
Risk
PONY is the more resilient| Metric | LUNR | PONY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.51 | 3.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1 | -0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | 2 | -1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -75.1% | -72.7% |
| Current drawdown | -68% | -72.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 112% | 73.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.2% | -7.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LUNR or PONY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, LUNR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against PONY's 34. The edge comes from quality. PONY is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 LUNR or PONY the better buy right now?
LUNR 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 LUNR over PONY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. LUNR leads Quality by 35 points; PONY leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, LUNR or PONY?
Analyst price targets imply +169.5% upside for LUNR and +256.7% for PONY, so the Street currently favors PONY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors LUNR. 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, LUNR or PONY?
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, LUNR or PONY?
LUNR 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, LUNR or PONY?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, LUNR or PONY?
PONY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PONY on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 LUNR more profitable than PONY?
LUNR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.3% vs 16.2%; operating margin -27.5% vs -214.1%; ttm roe 29.8% vs -10.5%.
Is LUNR's lead over PONY getting stronger or weaker?
LUNR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the LUNR vs PONY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PONY closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to LUNR's edge; PONY's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; LUNR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate LUNR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about LUNR and PONY?
LUNR: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PONY: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 LUNR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PONY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LUNR and PONY 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.