RIO vs TMC Stock Comparison
RIO currently leads TMC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 33. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between RIO and TMC?
RIO leads the current stock comparison as Rio Tinto Group, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rio Tinto Group vs TMC the metals company inc.
RIO leads
RIO leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality. Wall Street currently favors TMC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support RIO.
Rio Tinto Group
TMC the metals company inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RIO over TMC, 50 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. RIO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. RIO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMC. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor RIO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability.
Compare Rio Tinto Group and TMC the metals company 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 RIO and TMC 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 Resilience63 vs 35RIO +28
- Quality56 vs 39RIO +17
- Momentum24 vs 26Even
4 of 5 evidence groups favor RIO. RIO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
The central trade-off
RIO (Rio Tinto Group): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
TMC (TMC the metals company inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 85.5% against 23.6%.
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
RIORIO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIORIO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
RIORIO on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
TMCTMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors RIO, analyst targets favor TMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RIO | TMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.1% | +284.6% | TMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor RIO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RIO | 50 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | RIO | revenue growth 1.2% vs 0%; EPS growth 23.1% vs -180%; TTM ROE 18.9% vs 9.5% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | RIO | Price vs 50-day -14.8% vs -30.5%; vs 200-day -10.9% vs -43.4% |
| Risk Resilience | RIO | Risk Resilience 63 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | TMC | Target upside 19.1% vs 284.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RIO and TMC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 RIO.
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.
- 1TMC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge.
- 2TMC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3RIO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
RIO leads on balance| Metric | RIO | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.1% | -180% |
| Gross margin | 27.3% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 27.3% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.9% | 9.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.35 | 0 |
Performance
RIO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RIO | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.8% | -27.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.3% | -22.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -10.9% | -43.1% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | -54.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 21.8% | -60.7% |
Technicals
RIO has the stronger structure| Metric | RIO | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.1 | 31.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.5 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.8% | -30.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -10.9% | -43.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.6% | 85.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RIO or TMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RIO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against TMC'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 RIO or TMC the better buy right now?
RIO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RIO over TMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RIO leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; RIO leads Quality by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RIO or TMC?
Analyst price targets imply +19.1% upside for RIO and +284.6% for TMC, so the Street currently favors TMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors RIO. 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, RIO or TMC?
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, RIO or TMC?
RIO 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, RIO or TMC?
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, RIO or TMC?
RIO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIO on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 RIO more profitable than TMC?
RIO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.3% vs 0%; operating margin 27.3% vs 0%; ttm roe 18.9% vs 9.5%.
What would change the RIO vs TMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMC closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to RIO's edge; TMC generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; RIO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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.
Compare RIO and TMC 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.