NWS vs RUM Stock Comparison
Compare NWS and RUM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NWS and RUM?
NWS leads the current stock comparison as News Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
News Corporation vs Rumble Inc.
NWS leads
NWS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support NWS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
News Corporation
Rumble Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NWS over RUM, 51 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. NWS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. NWS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor NWS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NWS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare News Corporation and Rumble 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 NWS and RUM 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.
- Quality57 vs 34NWS +23
- Risk Resilience69 vs 49NWS +20
- Value36 vs 34Even
- Momentum52 vs 53Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor NWS. NWS’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 -5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No new signals fired.
NWS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NWS and RUM both carry a full feed there.
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
NWSNWS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NWSNWS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
NWSNWS on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | NWS | RUM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +11.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor NWS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NWS | 51 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | NWSon balance | revenue growth 7% vs 58.6%; EPS growth 106.3% vs -133.3%; TTM ROE 6.6% vs -29.3%; gross margin 56.9% vs 21.2%; operating margin 11.4% vs -97.8% — NWS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 34 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 9.5% vs 10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NWS | Risk Resilience 69 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NWS and RUM 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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 NWS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NWS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NWS +10
- 51 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- NWS +12
- 56 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- NWS +10
- 56 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- NWS +23
- 55 vs 32
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.04%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
NWS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.21%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.65%, 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.
- 1RUM closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWS's edge.
- 2RUM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NWS'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
NWS leads on balance| Metric | NWS | RUM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7% | 58.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.3% | -133.3% |
| Gross margin | 56.9% | 21.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | -97.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.6% | -29.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.34 | 0.38 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | NWS | RUM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.7% | -16.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | -2.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 6.1% | 5.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 19.5% | 32% |
| Year to date | 10.6% | 16.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.5% | 0.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | NWS | RUM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 40.8 |
| ADX (14) | 26.9 | 38.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.5% | 10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 85.4% |
Risk
NWS is the more resilient| Metric | NWS | RUM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.33 | 3.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.03 | 0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 0.56 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -45.4% |
| Current drawdown | -7.2% | -28% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.4% | 77% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NWS or RUM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NWS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 against RUM's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 NWS or RUM the better buy right now?
NWS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 NWS over RUM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NWS leads Quality by 23 points; NWS leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NWS or RUM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for NWS and +11.6% for RUM. 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, NWS or RUM?
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, NWS or RUM?
NWS 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, NWS or RUM?
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, NWS or RUM?
NWS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWS on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 NWS more profitable than RUM?
NWS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.9% vs 21.2%; operating margin 11.4% vs -97.8%; ttm roe 6.6% vs -29.3%.
Is NWS's lead over RUM getting stronger or weaker?
NWS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 NWS vs RUM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RUM closes the Quality gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWS's edge; RUM's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NWS'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 NWS and RUM?
NWS: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RUM: 3 bullish / 1 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 NWS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RUM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NWS and RUM 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.