MT vs RIO Stock Comparison
Compare MT and RIO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MT and RIO?
RIO leads the current stock comparison as Rio Tinto Group, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ArcelorMittal S.A. vs Rio Tinto Group
RIO leads
RIO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RIO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ArcelorMittal S.A.
Rio Tinto Group
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIO over MT, 57 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. RIO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while MT holds the stronger momentum profile. RIO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RIO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. RIO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ArcelorMittal S.A. and Rio Tinto Group 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 MT 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.
- Quality34 vs 56RIO +22
- Momentum73 vs 53MT +20
- Risk Resilience50 vs 59RIO +9
- Value61 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RIO. RIO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; MT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +4
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
No new signals fired.
RIO's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MT and RIO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RIO (Rio Tinto Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
MT (ArcelorMittal S.A.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
MTMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MTMT on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
RIORIO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
RIORIO 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 | MT | RIO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.3% | +1.7% | RIO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.5% | +35.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | Even | 54 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | RIOon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 1.2%; EPS growth 18.4% vs 23.1%; TTM ROE 3.3% vs 18.9%; gross margin 9.6% vs 27.3%; operating margin 4.3% vs 27.3% — RIO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 61 vs 59 |
| Technicals | MT | Price vs 50-day 5.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day 25.3% vs 6% |
| Risk Resilience | RIO | Risk Resilience 50 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | RIO | Target upside -6.3% vs 1.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MT 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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)
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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RIO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RIO +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- RIO +9
- 54 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- RIO +5
- 55 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- RIO +7
- 43 vs 50
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 14 when RIO moved ahead of MT.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.76%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.73%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.57%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1MT closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge.
- 2MT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 | MT | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 1.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.4% | 23.1% |
| Gross margin | 9.6% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 4.3% | 27.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.3% | 18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 0.35 |
Performance
MT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MT | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | -3.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.2% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.6% | 0.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 32.5% | 7.9% |
| Year to date | 64.7% | 24.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 119.4% | 56% |
Technicals
MT has the stronger structure| Metric | MT | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.7 | 41.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.1 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25.3% | 6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.2% | 31.6% |
Risk
RIO is the more resilient| Metric | MT | RIO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.97 | 1.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.21 | 2.42 |
| Max drawdown | -28.8% | -20.7% |
| Current drawdown | -4.7% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.5% | 30.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MT or RIO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against MT's 54. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. MT 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 MT or RIO the better buy right now?
RIO 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RIO over MT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIO leads Quality by 22 points; MT leads Momentum by 20 points; RIO leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MT or RIO?
Analyst price targets imply -6.3% upside for MT and +1.7% for RIO, so the Street currently favors RIO. 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, MT or RIO?
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, MT or RIO?
MT 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, MT or RIO?
MT on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, MT or RIO?
RIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 MT more profitable than RIO?
RIO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 9.6% vs 27.3%; operating margin 4.3% vs 27.3%; ttm roe 3.3% vs 18.9%.
Is RIO's lead over MT getting stronger or weaker?
RIO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-14, when RIO moved ahead of MT.
What would change the MT vs RIO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MT closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge; MT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RIO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 MT and RIO?
MT: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RIO: 3 bullish / 1 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 MT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RIO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MT 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.