RUN vs WKHS Stock Comparison
Compare RUN and WKHS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RUN and WKHS?
RUN leads the current stock comparison as Sunrun Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Sunrun Inc. vs Workhorse Group Inc.
RUN leads
RUN leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RUN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Sunrun Inc.
Workhorse Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RUN over WKHS, 38 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. RUN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WKHS holds the stronger momentum profile. RUN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RUN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RUN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Sunrun Inc. and Workhorse Group Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare RUN 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.
- Value73 vs 43RUN +30
- Momentum32 vs 52WKHS +20
- Quality18 vs 0RUN +18
- Risk Resilience18 vs 25WKHS +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RUN. RUN’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WKHS keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No new signals fired.
RUN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RUN and WKHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RUN (Sunrun Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WKHS (Workhorse Group Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 81.6% against 55.8%.
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
RUNRUN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
RUNRUN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
WKHSWKHS on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
WKHSWKHS on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
RUNRUN 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 | RUN | WKHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +100.6% | +99.3% | RUN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RUN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RUN | 38 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | RUNon balance | revenue growth 20.5% vs -17.7%; EPS growth -32.4% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 2.5% vs -253.4%; gross margin 34.5% vs -55.3%; operating margin 2.7% vs -266.1% — RUN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RUN | Value 73 vs 43 |
| Technicals | WKHS | Price vs 50-day -17.2% vs 0%; vs 200-day -39.9% vs -13.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WKHS | Risk Resilience 18 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | RUN | Target upside 100.6% vs 99.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RUN 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 8 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 RUN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RUN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RUN +8
- 38 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- RUN +9
- 38 vs 29
- 30 sessions ago
- RUN +3
- 42 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- RUN +9
- 41 vs 32
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when RUN 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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (38.88%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (16.35%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.79%)
RUN 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 -0.81%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.99%, 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.
- 1WKHS closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to RUN's edge.
- 2WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RUN'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
RUN leads on balance| Metric | RUN | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 20.5% | -17.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -32.4% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 34.5% | -55.3% |
| Operating margin | 2.7% | -266.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 2.5% | -253.4% |
| Debt to equity | 4.36 | 3.88 |
Performance
WKHS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RUN | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | -6.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12.3% | -1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.5% | -1.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31.7% | -13.1% |
| Year to date | -52.3% | -40.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49% | 153.3% |
Technicals
WKHS has the stronger structure| Metric | RUN | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.3 | 46.6 |
| ADX (14) | 23.7 | 24 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.2% | 0% |
| Price vs 200-day | -39.9% | -13.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.8% | 81.6% |
Risk
WKHS is the more resilient| Metric | RUN | WKHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.8 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.42 | 0.89 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.56 | 16.17 |
| Max drawdown | -60.9% | -69.2% |
| Current drawdown | -59.7% | -60% |
| Annualized volatility | 78.9% | 879.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.7% | -8.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RUN or WKHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RUN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 38 against WKHS's 30. The edge comes from value and quality. WKHS 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 RUN or WKHS the better buy right now?
RUN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 RUN over WKHS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RUN leads Value by 30 points; WKHS leads Momentum by 20 points; RUN leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RUN or WKHS?
Analyst price targets imply +100.6% upside for RUN and +99.3% for WKHS, so the Street currently favors RUN. 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, RUN or WKHS?
RUN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RUN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, RUN or WKHS?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, RUN or WKHS?
WKHS 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, RUN or WKHS?
WKHS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WKHS 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 RUN more profitable than WKHS?
RUN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 34.5% vs -55.3%; operating margin 2.7% vs -266.1%; ttm roe 2.5% vs -253.4%.
Is RUN's lead over WKHS getting stronger or weaker?
RUN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when RUN moved ahead of WKHS.
What would change the RUN vs WKHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WKHS closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to RUN's edge; WKHS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RUN'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 RUN and WKHS?
RUN: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WKHS: 1 bullish / 2 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 RUN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WKHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RUN 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.