NIO vs F Stock Comparison
F currently leads NIO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 40 vs 38. The clearest difference is value, while NIO has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between NIO and F?
F leads the current stock comparison as Ford Motor Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NIO Inc. vs Ford Motor Company
F leads
F leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from NIO. Wall Street currently favors NIO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support F, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NIO Inc.
Ford Motor Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors F over NIO, 40 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. F's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while NIO holds the stronger risk resilience profile. F also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NIO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor F today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. F lead: Reversed — NIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; F now leads by 2.
Compare NIO Inc. and Ford Motor Company 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 NIO and F 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.
- Value61 vs 71F +10
- Risk Resilience50 vs 40NIO +10
- Quality7 vs 5Even
- Momentum42 vs 44Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor F. F’s edge is concentrated in value; NIO keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
F's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NIO and F both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
F (Ford Motor Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
NIO (NIO Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41% against 22.9%.
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
FF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NIONIO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NIONIO on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
NIONIO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors F, analyst targets favor NIO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NIO | F | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +83.9% | +29.7% | NIO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.4% | +22.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 7 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor F. 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 | 38 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | NIOon balance | revenue growth -25.3% vs 11.7%; EPS growth -5.1% vs -151.6%; TTM ROE -3.3% vs -18.9%; gross margin 15.7% vs 10.8%; operating margin -8.2% vs 2% — NIO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | F | Value 61 vs 71 |
| Technicals | F | Price vs 50-day -12.8% vs -10.1%; vs 200-day -30.8% vs -9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | NIO | Risk Resilience 50 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | NIO | Target upside 83.9% vs 29.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NIO and F 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 F.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20F lead: Reversed — NIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; F now leads by 2.
- Today
- F +2
- 38 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- NIO +1
- 38 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- NIO +1
- 35 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- NIO +2
- 39 vs 37
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when F moved ahead of NIO.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NIO
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.94%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.4%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
F 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 -2.04%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.06%, 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.
- 1NIO closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to F's edge.
- 2NIO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3F's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
NIO leads on balance| Metric | NIO | F |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -25.3% | 11.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.1% | -151.6% |
| Gross margin | 15.7% | 10.8% |
| Operating margin | -8.2% | 2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.3% | -18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 6.12 | 4.57 |
Performance
F leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | NIO | F |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.8% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.6% | -15.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -46.7% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | -32.7% | -7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.8% | 3.5% |
Technicals
F has the stronger structure| Metric | NIO | F |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 34.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.8% | -10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -30.8% | -9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41% | 22.9% |
Risk
NIO is the more resilient| Metric | NIO | F |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.18 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.19 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -54.6% | -31.2% |
| Current drawdown | -53.8% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.2% | 38.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NIO or F?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, F is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 40 against NIO's 38. The edge comes from value. NIO 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 NIO or F the better buy right now?
F carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor F over NIO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. F leads Value by 10 points; NIO leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NIO or F?
Analyst price targets imply +83.9% upside for NIO and +29.7% for F, so the Street currently favors NIO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors F. 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, NIO or F?
F is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. F on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, NIO or F?
NIO 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, NIO or F?
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, NIO or F?
NIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NIO on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 NIO more profitable than F?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 15.7% vs 10.8%; operating margin -8.2% vs 2%; ttm roe -3.3% vs -18.9%. NIO leads on two measures and F on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is F's lead over NIO getting stronger or weaker?
F lead: Reversed — NIO led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; F now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, when F moved ahead of NIO.
What would change the NIO vs F verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NIO closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to F's edge; NIO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; f's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 NIO and F?
NIO: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. F: 1 bullish / 2 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 NIO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On F it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NIO and F 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.