QS vs WKHS Stock Comparison
QS currently leads WKHS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 33 vs 24. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between QS and WKHS?
QS leads the current stock comparison as QuantumScape Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
QuantumScape Corporation vs Workhorse Group Inc.
QS leads
QS leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WKHS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support QS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
QuantumScape Corporation
Workhorse Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QS over WKHS, 33 versus 24 as of Oct 31, 2026. QS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. QS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WKHS. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor QS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare QuantumScape Corporation and Workhorse Group 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 WKHS 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 0QS +29
- Momentum35 vs 25QS +10
- Risk Resilience39 vs 30QS +9
3 of 5 evidence groups favor QS. QS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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.
QS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QS and WKHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QS (QuantumScape Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
WKHS (Workhorse Group Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations.
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
QSQS 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
WKHSWKHS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors QS, analyst targets favor WKHS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | QS | WKHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.3% | +103.4% | WKHS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | 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
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor QS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QS | 33 vs 24 |
| Fundamentals | QS | EPS growth 12.5% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE -35.5% vs -253.4% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | WKHS | Price vs 50-day -16.9% vs -0.6%; vs 200-day -36.9% vs -21.9% |
| Risk Resilience | QS | Risk Resilience 39 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | WKHS | Target upside 29.3% vs 103.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QS and WKHS 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 QS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28QS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QS +9
- 33 vs 24
- 7 sessions ago
- QS +7
- 31 vs 24
- 30 sessions ago
- QS +5
- 31 vs 26
- 90 sessions ago
- QS +8
- 37 vs 29
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when QS moved ahead of WKHS.
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 WKHS
- 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.
QS 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 +15.69%, 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.
- 1WKHS closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to QS's edge.
- 2WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QS'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
QS leads on balance| Metric | QS | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -17.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 12.5% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 0% | -55.3% |
| Operating margin | 0% | -266.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -35.5% | -253.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 3.88 |
Performance
QS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | QS | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.5% | -4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.7% | -13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.9% | -19.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -38% | 8.5% |
| Year to date | -59.3% | -50.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -74.8% | -80.8% |
Technicals
WKHS has the stronger structure| Metric | QS | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42 | 22.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.9% | -0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -36.9% | -21.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.7% | 36.9% |
Risk
QS is the more resilient| Metric | QS | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.04 | 1.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.57 | -1.24 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.47 | -2.3 |
| Max drawdown | -78.9% | -81.9% |
| Current drawdown | -77% | -80.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.9% | 98.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.1% | -8.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QS or WKHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 33 against WKHS's 24. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 WKHS the better buy right now?
QS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 QS over WKHS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QS leads Quality by 29 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 WKHS?
Analyst price targets imply +29.3% upside for QS and +103.4% for WKHS, so the Street currently favors WKHS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors QS. 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, QS or WKHS?
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 WKHS?
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 WKHS?
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 WKHS?
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 WKHS?
QS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 0% vs -55.3%; operating margin 0% vs -266.1%; ttm roe -35.5% vs -253.4%.
Is QS's lead over WKHS getting stronger or weaker?
QS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when QS moved ahead of WKHS.
What would change the QS vs WKHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WKHS closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to QS's edge; WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QS'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 QS and WKHS?
QS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WKHS: 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 WKHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QS and WKHS 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.