NOK vs WRD Stock Comparison
NOK currently leads WRD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 36. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between NOK and WRD?
NOK leads the current stock comparison as Nokia Oyj, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Nokia Oyj vs WeRide Inc.
NOK leads
NOK leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WRD on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NOK, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NOK over WRD, 49 versus 36 as of Oct 22, 2026. NOK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. NOK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WRD. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOK today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. NOK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions. NOK leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Nokia Oyj and WeRide 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 NOK and WRD 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.
- Value63 vs 35NOK +28
- Quality52 vs 43NOK +9
- Momentum30 vs 25NOK +5
- Risk Resilience46 vs 41NOK +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NOK. NOK’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
NOK's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NOK and WRD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NOK (Nokia Oyj): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WRD (WeRide Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 60% against 50.4%.
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
NOKNOK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WRDWRD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NOKNOK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
NOKNOK on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
NOKNOK on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
WRDWRD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors NOK, analyst targets favor WRD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NOK | WRD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +89.2% | +165.8% | WRD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +11.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 2 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NOK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NOK | 49 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | NOKon balance | revenue growth 7.1% vs 103%; EPS growth -98.1% vs -5.4%; TTM ROE 4.5% vs -23.9%; gross margin 44.6% vs 32.8%; operating margin 8.3% vs -214.7% — NOK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NOK | Value 63 vs 35 |
| Technicals | NOK | Price vs 50-day -9.5% vs -22.3%; vs 200-day -11% vs -35.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NOK | Risk Resilience 46 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WRD | Target upside 89.2% vs 165.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NOK and WRD 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 NOK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NOK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NOK +13
- 49 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- NOK +14
- 50 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- NOK +19
- 56 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- NOK +14
- 58 vs 44
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only NOK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WRD
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.62%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NOK 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 +2.55%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.61%, 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.
- 1WRD closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOK's edge.
- 2WRD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3NOK'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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate NOK'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
NOK leads on balance| Metric | NOK | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.1% | 103% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -98.1% | -5.4% |
| Gross margin | 44.6% | 32.8% |
| Operating margin | 8.3% | -214.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.5% | -23.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.1 |
Performance
NOK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NOK | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.5% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.6% | -26.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -12.3% | -25% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -11.7% | -46.4% |
| Year to date | 39.4% | -50% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | -58.8% |
Technicals
NOK has the stronger structure| Metric | NOK | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.2 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.5 | 33.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.5% | -22.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11% | -35.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50.4% | 60% |
Risk
NOK is the more resilient| Metric | NOK | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.23 | 2.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | -1.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.61 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -50.1% | -65.2% |
| Current drawdown | -46.5% | -63% |
| Annualized volatility | 64.1% | 60.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NOK or WRD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NOK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 49 against WRD's 36. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 NOK or WRD the better buy right now?
NOK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 NOK over WRD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NOK leads Value by 28 points; NOK leads Quality by 9 points; NOK leads Momentum by 5 points. NOK leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WRD simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, NOK or WRD?
Analyst price targets imply +89.2% upside for NOK and +165.8% for WRD, so the Street currently favors WRD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors NOK. 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, NOK or WRD?
NOK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NOK 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, NOK or WRD?
WRD 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, NOK or WRD?
NOK on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, NOK or WRD?
NOK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NOK on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 NOK more profitable than WRD?
NOK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 44.6% vs 32.8%; operating margin 8.3% vs -214.7%; ttm roe 4.5% vs -23.9%.
Is NOK's lead over WRD getting stronger or weaker?
NOK lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NOK vs WRD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WRD closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to NOK's edge; WRD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; NOK'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 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate NOK's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NOK and WRD?
NOK: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WRD: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 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 NOK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WRD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NOK and WRD 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.