MT vs STLD Stock Comparison
STLD currently leads MT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 45. The clearest difference is momentum, while MT has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MT and STLD?
STLD leads the current stock comparison as Steel Dynamics, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ArcelorMittal S.A. vs Steel Dynamics, Inc.
STLD leads
STLD leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MT on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support STLD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
ArcelorMittal S.A.
Steel Dynamics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STLD over MT, 61 versus 45 as of Oct 31, 2026. STLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while MT holds the stronger value profile. STLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STLD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ArcelorMittal S.A. and Steel Dynamics, Inc. 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 MT and STLD 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.
- Momentum39 vs 79STLD +40
- Quality34 vs 52STLD +18
- Risk Resilience47 vs 59STLD +12
- Value61 vs 57MT +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor STLD. STLD’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; MT 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, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, 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.
STLD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MT and STLD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STLD (Steel Dynamics, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
MT (ArcelorMittal S.A.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 36.3% against 29.3%.
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
STLDSTLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STLDSTLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MTMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
STLDSTLD on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
STLDSTLD on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
MTMT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors STLD, analyst targets favor MT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MT | STLD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.1% | +10.3% | MT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.2% | +15.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 6 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor STLD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | STLD | 45 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | STLDon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 18.4% vs 43%; TTM ROE 3.3% vs 21%; gross margin 9.6% vs 15.8%; operating margin 4.3% vs 12% — STLD takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MT | Value 61 vs 57 |
| Technicals | STLD | Price vs 50-day -13.4% vs 5.9%; vs 200-day -5.2% vs 12.1% |
| Risk Resilience | STLD | Risk Resilience 47 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | MT | Target upside 23.1% vs 10.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MT and STLD 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 STLD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- STLD +16
- 45 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- STLD +14
- 43 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- STLD +10
- 41 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MT +10
- 52 vs 42
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when STLD 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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only STLD
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.60%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -3.2%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.08%, 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.
- 1MT closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to STLD's edge.
- 2MT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3STLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
STLD leads on balance| Metric | MT | STLD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.4% | 43% |
| Gross margin | 9.6% | 15.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.3% | 12% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.3% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 0.26 | 0.43 |
Performance
STLD leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MT | STLD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | 12.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.9% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.8% | 11.4% |
| Year to date | 32.3% | 47.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 54.1% | 63.4% |
Technicals
STLD has the stronger structure| Metric | MT | STLD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.6 | 67.1 |
| ADX (14) | 31.5 | 12.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.4% | 5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.2% | 12.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.3% | 29.3% |
Risk
STLD is the more resilient| Metric | MT | STLD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.1 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.08 | 1.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.82 | 2.03 |
| Max drawdown | -28.8% | -22.6% |
| Current drawdown | -23.4% | -11.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.6% | 35.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MT or STLD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STLD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 61 against MT's 45. The edge comes from momentum and quality. MT 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 MT or STLD the better buy right now?
STLD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 STLD over MT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. STLD leads Momentum by 40 points; STLD leads Quality by 18 points; STLD leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MT or STLD?
Analyst price targets imply +23.1% upside for MT and +10.3% for STLD, so the Street currently favors MT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors STLD. 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, MT or STLD?
MT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, MT or STLD?
STLD 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 STLD?
STLD on the Momentum factor, by 40 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 STLD?
STLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STLD on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 STLD?
STLD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 9.6% vs 15.8%; operating margin 4.3% vs 12%; ttm roe 3.3% vs 21%.
Is STLD's lead over MT getting stronger or weaker?
STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when STLD moved ahead of MT.
What would change the MT vs STLD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MT closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to STLD's edge; MT's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; STLD's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 STLD?
MT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. STLD: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On STLD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MT and STLD 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.