QS vs SPWR Stock Comparison
SPWR currently leads QS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 33. The clearest difference is quality, while QS has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between QS and SPWR?
SPWR leads the current stock comparison as SunPower Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
QuantumScape Corporation vs SunPower Inc.
SPWR leads
SPWR leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Competitive: 2 of 5 evidence groups support SPWR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
QuantumScape Corporation
SunPower Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SPWR over QS, 54 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. SPWR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while QS holds the stronger momentum profile. SPWR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SPWR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare QuantumScape Corporation and SunPower 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 QS and SPWR 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.
- Quality29 vs 78SPWR +49
- Momentum35 vs 25QS +10
- Risk Resilience39 vs 30QS +9
2 of 5 evidence groups favor SPWR. SPWR’s edge is concentrated in quality; QS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
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 5 active signals are unchanged.
SPWR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QS and SPWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SPWR (SunPower Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
QS (QuantumScape Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 60.7% against 55%.
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
SPWRSPWR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QSQS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
QSQS on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
QSQS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
SPWRSPWR 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 | QS | SPWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.3% | +2508.7% | SPWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SPWR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SPWR | 33 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 12.5% vs -80.9%; TTM ROE -35.5% vs 26.1% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | QS | Price vs 50-day -16.9% vs -20.8%; vs 200-day -36.9% vs -72.1% |
| Risk Resilience | QS | Risk Resilience 39 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | SPWR | Target upside 29.3% vs 2508.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QS and SPWR 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 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 of 5 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 SPWR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SPWR +21
- 33 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- SPWR +23
- 31 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- SPWR +23
- 31 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- SPWR +27
- 37 vs 64
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 QS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPWR
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active.
SPWR 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 -3.33%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -5.31%, 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.
- 1QS closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge.
- 2QS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | QS | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -24.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.5% | -80.9% |
| Gross margin | 0% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 0% | -24.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -35.5% | 26.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | -5.03 |
Performance
QS leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QS | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.5% | 2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.7% | -22.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.9% | -25.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -38% | -71.3% |
| Year to date | -59.3% | -84.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -74.8% | -88.7% |
Technicals
QS has the stronger structure| Metric | QS | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42 | 29.8 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.9% | -20.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36.9% | -72.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.7% | 55% |
Risk
QS is the more resilient| Metric | QS | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.04 | 2.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | -1.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.47 | -2.32 |
| Max drawdown | -78.9% | -89.3% |
| Current drawdown | -77% | -88.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.9% | 105.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.1% | -9.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QS or SPWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SPWR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against QS's 33. The edge comes from quality. QS is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 QS or SPWR the better buy right now?
SPWR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 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 SPWR over QS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SPWR leads Quality by 49 points; QS leads Momentum by 10 points; QS leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QS or SPWR?
Analyst price targets imply +29.3% upside for QS and +2508.7% for SPWR, so the Street currently favors SPWR. 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, QS or SPWR?
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, QS or SPWR?
QS 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, QS or SPWR?
QS on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, QS or SPWR?
QS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QS 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 QS more profitable than SPWR?
SPWR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 0% vs 48.8%; operating margin 0% vs -24.5%; ttm roe -35.5% vs 26.1%.
Is SPWR's lead over QS getting stronger or weaker?
SPWR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the QS vs SPWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: QS closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to SPWR's edge; QS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SPWR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 QS and SPWR?
QS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. SPWR: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 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 QS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SPWR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QS and SPWR 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.