PL vs WRD Stock Comparison
WRD currently leads PL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 36 vs 33. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between PL and WRD?
WRD leads the current stock comparison as WeRide Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Planet Labs PBC vs WeRide Inc.
WRD leads
WRD leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WRD, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Planet Labs PBC
WeRide Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WRD over PL, 36 versus 33 as of Oct 22, 2026. WRD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. WRD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. WRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Planet Labs PBC and WeRide Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare PL 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.
- Risk Resilience32 vs 41WRD +9
- Quality38 vs 43WRD +5
- Momentum27 vs 25Even
- Value34 vs 35Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor WRD. WRD’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience 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 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
WRD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PL and WRD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WRD (WeRide Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
PL (Planet Labs PBC): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 72.4% against 60%.
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
WRDWRD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WRDWRD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
WRDWRD on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
WRDWRD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | PL | WRD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +154.8% | +165.8% | WRD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +103.1% | +11.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WRD. 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 | 33 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | PLon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 103%; EPS growth 16.7% vs -5.4%; TTM ROE -105.3% vs -23.9%; gross margin 55.5% vs 32.8%; operating margin -31.9% vs -214.7% — PL takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 35 |
| Technicals | WRD | Price vs 50-day -25.5% vs -22.3%; vs 200-day -50.1% vs -35.6% |
| Risk Resilience | WRD | Risk Resilience 32 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WRD | Target upside 154.8% vs 165.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PL and WRD 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 WRD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20WRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WRD +3
- 33 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- WRD +3
- 33 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- WRD +1
- 36 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- WRD +2
- 42 vs 44
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 2 when PL moved ahead of WRD.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WRD
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
WRD 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 +2.31%, 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.
- 1PL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRD's edge.
- 2PL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WRD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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
PL leads on balance| Metric | PL | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 103% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.7% | -5.4% |
| Gross margin | 55.5% | 32.8% |
| Operating margin | -31.9% | -214.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -105.3% | -23.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.1 | 0.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PL | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.6% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -20.8% | -26.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -40.7% | -25% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -63.9% | -46.4% |
| Year to date | -28.2% | -50% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.3% | -58.8% |
Technicals
WRD has the stronger structure| Metric | PL | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.4 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.5 | 33.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -25.5% | -22.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -50.1% | -35.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 72.4% | 60% |
Risk
WRD is the more resilient| Metric | PL | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.54 | 2.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | -1.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -73.9% | -65.2% |
| Current drawdown | -73.9% | -63% |
| Annualized volatility | 93.3% | 60.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.2% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PL or WRD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WRD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 36 against PL's 33. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 PL or WRD the better buy right now?
WRD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor WRD over PL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WRD leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; WRD leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PL or WRD?
Analyst price targets imply +154.8% upside for PL and +165.8% for WRD, so the Street currently favors WRD. 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, PL or WRD?
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, PL 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, PL or WRD?
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, PL or WRD?
WRD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WRD on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 PL more profitable than WRD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 55.5% vs 32.8%; operating margin -31.9% vs -214.7%; ttm roe -105.3% vs -23.9%. PL leads on two measures and WRD 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 WRD's lead over PL getting stronger or weaker?
WRD lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-02, when PL moved ahead of WRD.
What would change the PL vs WRD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PL closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to WRD's edge; PL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WRD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 PL and WRD?
PL: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 PL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WRD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare PL 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.