CF vs NGD Stock Comparison
Compare CF and NGD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CF and NGD?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs New Gold Inc.
CF leads
CF leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NGD on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CF, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
New Gold Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over NGD, 70 versus 61 as of Sep 11, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while NGD holds the stronger quality profile. CF also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NGD. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and New Gold 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 CF and NGD 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.
- Value64 vs 36CF +28
- Quality80 vs 90NGD +10
- Risk Resilience52 vs 52Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in value; NGD keeps a meaningful quality 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 -6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CF's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and NGD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
NGD (New Gold Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 69.9% against 38.1%.
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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CFCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CFCF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NGDNGD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor NGD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | NGD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.7% | +40.4% | NGD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | 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 CF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CF | 70 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | NGDon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs 10.5%; EPS growth 18.8% vs 3.7%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 64.8%; gross margin 42.5% vs 51.8%; operating margin 38.1% vs 44.8% — NGD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CF | Value 64 vs 36 |
| Technicals | CF | Price vs 50-day 8.2% vs -18.6%; vs 200-day 24% vs 28% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | NGD | Target upside -4.7% vs 40.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and NGD 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 swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CF.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CF +9
- 70 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +10
- 71 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- CF +17
- 64 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +23
- 70 vs 47
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
No active signals
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.51%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1NGD closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2NGD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate CF'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
NGD leads on balance| Metric | CF | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 3.7% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 51.8% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 44.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 64.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 0.21 |
Performance
CF leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CF | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -15.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.6% | -14.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.7% | 10.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.5% | 41.2% |
| Year to date | 74.7% | 4.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | 170.2% |
Technicals
CF has the stronger structure| Metric | CF | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.4 | 22.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | -18.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | 28% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.1% | 69.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CF | NGD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.92 | 2.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 1.88 |
| Sortino ratio | 2 | 2.37 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -32.3% |
| Current drawdown | -3% | -32.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.9% | 66% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or NGD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 70 against NGD's 61. The edge comes from value. NGD is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CF or NGD the better buy right now?
CF 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 CF over NGD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Value by 28 points; NGD leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or NGD?
Analyst price targets imply -4.7% upside for CF and +40.4% for NGD, so the Street currently favors NGD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, CF or NGD?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, CF or NGD?
CF 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, CF or NGD?
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, CF or NGD?
CF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CF more profitable than NGD?
NGD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.5% vs 51.8%; operating margin 38.1% vs 44.8%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 64.8%.
Is CF's lead over NGD getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 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 CF vs NGD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NGD closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; NGD generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate CF's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CF and NGD?
CF: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. NGD: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CF and NGD 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.