RIVN vs F Stock Comparison
F currently leads RIVN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 40 vs 29. The clearest difference is value, while RIVN has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between RIVN and F?
F leads the current stock comparison as Ford Motor Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rivian Automotive, Inc. vs Ford Motor Company
F leads
F leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors RIVN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support F, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Rivian Automotive, Inc.
Ford Motor Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors F over RIVN, 40 versus 29 as of Oct 21, 2026. F's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while RIVN holds the stronger quality profile. F also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RIVN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor F today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. F lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rivian Automotive, Inc. and Ford Motor Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare RIVN and F 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.
- Value34 vs 71F +37
- Momentum24 vs 44F +20
- Quality18 vs 5RIVN +13
- Risk Resilience47 vs 40RIVN +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor F. F’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; RIVN keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
F's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RIVN and F both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
F (Ford Motor Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
RIVN (Rivian Automotive, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.4% against 22.9%.
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
FF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RIVNRIVN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 points.
Momentum
FF on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
RIVNRIVN on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
RIVNRIVN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors F, analyst targets favor RIVN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RIVN | F | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +35.6% | +29.7% | RIVN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +53.3% | +22.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 7 | 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 6 covered evidence groups favor F. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | F | 29 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | Fon balance | revenue growth 20.1% vs 11.7%; EPS growth -90.9% vs -151.6%; TTM ROE -67.5% vs -18.9%; gross margin 7.5% vs 10.8%; operating margin -60.1% vs 2% — F takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | F | Value 34 vs 71 |
| Technicals | F | Price vs 50-day -17.6% vs -10.1%; vs 200-day -21.1% vs -9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | RIVN | Risk Resilience 47 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | RIVN | Target upside 35.6% vs 29.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RIVN and F 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 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 F.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20F lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- F +11
- 29 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- F +8
- 29 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- F +4
- 30 vs 34
- 90 sessions ago
- F +8
- 29 vs 37
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 9 when F moved ahead of RIVN.
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 / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only RIVN
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.57%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.8%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only F
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
F 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 up over the latest session (price +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.06%, 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.
- 1RIVN closes the Value gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to F's edge.
- 2RIVN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3F'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
F leads on balance| Metric | RIVN | F |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 20.1% | 11.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -90.9% | -151.6% |
| Gross margin | 7.5% | 10.8% |
| Operating margin | -60.1% | 2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -67.5% | -18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.04 | 4.57 |
Performance
F leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RIVN | F |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.9% | -7.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.6% | -15.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.5% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | -34.5% | -7.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.7% | 3.5% |
Technicals
F has the stronger structure| Metric | RIVN | F |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 13.4 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.9 | 34.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.6% | -10.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.1% | -9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.4% | 22.9% |
Risk
RIVN is the more resilient| Metric | RIVN | F |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.12 | 1.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -45% | -31.2% |
| Current drawdown | -44.6% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 70.4% | 38.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RIVN or F?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, F is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 40 against RIVN's 29. The edge comes from value and momentum. RIVN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 RIVN or F the better buy right now?
F carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 F over RIVN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. F leads Value by 37 points; F leads Momentum by 20 points; RIVN leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RIVN or F?
Analyst price targets imply +35.6% upside for RIVN and +29.7% for F, so the Street currently favors RIVN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors F. 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, RIVN or F?
F is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. F on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 points. 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, RIVN or F?
RIVN 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, RIVN or F?
F on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, RIVN or F?
RIVN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RIVN on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 RIVN more profitable than F?
F leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 7.5% vs 10.8%; operating margin -60.1% vs 2%; ttm roe -67.5% vs -18.9%.
Is F's lead over RIVN getting stronger or weaker?
F lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-09, when F moved ahead of RIVN.
What would change the RIVN vs F verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RIVN closes the Value gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to F's edge; RIVN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; f'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 RIVN and F?
RIVN: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. F: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 RIVN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On F it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RIVN and F 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.