META vs TSLA Stock Comparison
Meta Platforms, Inc. vs Tesla, Inc.
META leads
META leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support META, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Tesla, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors META over TSLA, 56 versus 47 as of Sep 2, 2026. META's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while TSLA holds the stronger momentum profile. META also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor META today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. META lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Meta Platforms, Inc. and Tesla, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Quality30%83 vs 41META +42
- Momentum25%41 vs 82TSLA +41
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 47META +16
- Value30%38 vs 24META +14
5 of 6 evidence groups favor META. META’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; TSLA keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
META's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — META and TSLA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
TSLA (Tesla, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 41.1% against 29.3%.
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
METAMETA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TSLATSLA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
METAMETA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
TSLATSLA on the Momentum factor, by 41 points.
Lower downside
METAMETA on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | META | TSLA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +23.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +39.5% | +31% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 12 | 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 META. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | META | 56 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | METAon balance | revenue growth 8% vs 26.1%; EPS growth -41.1% vs 126.7%; ROE 29.7% vs 4.6%; gross margin 81.7% vs 18.9%; operating margin 38.1% vs 4.2% — META takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | META | Value 38 vs 24 |
| Technicals | META | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day -8.1% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | META | Risk Resilience 63 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 23.8% vs 23.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of META and TSLA 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 9 points.
- 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)
- 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 META.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1META lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- META +9
- 56 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- META +11
- 55 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- META +17
- 51 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- META +18
- 50 vs 32
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 8 when TSLA moved ahead of META.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.13%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.32%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.72%)
META 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 +2.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.59%, 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.
- 1TSLA closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge.
- 2TSLA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate META'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
META leads on balance| Metric | META | TSLA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8% | 26.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.1% | 126.7% |
| Gross margin | 81.7% | 18.9% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 4.2% |
| Return on equity | 29.7% | 4.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0.11 |
Technicals
META has the stronger structure| Metric | META | TSLA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.3 | 65 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 20.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.1% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 41.1% |
Risk
META is the more resilient| Metric | META | TSLA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.41 | 2.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.83 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -32.6% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -26.6% | -24.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.8% | 47.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, META or TSLA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, META is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 56 against TSLA's 47. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. TSLA 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 META or TSLA the better buy right now?
META carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 META over TSLA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. META leads Quality by 42 points; TSLA leads Momentum by 41 points; META leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, META or TSLA?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for META and +23.8% for TSLA. 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, META or TSLA?
META is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. META 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, META or TSLA?
TSLA 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, META or TSLA?
TSLA on the Momentum factor, by 41 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, META or TSLA?
META is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. META 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 META more profitable than TSLA?
META leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 81.7% vs 18.9%; operating margin 38.1% vs 4.2%; roe 29.7% vs 4.6%.
Is META's lead over TSLA getting stronger or weaker?
META lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-08, when TSLA moved ahead of META.
What would change the META vs TSLA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TSLA closes the Quality gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge; TSLA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate META's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about META and TSLA?
META: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. TSLA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 META is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TSLA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare META and TSLA 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.