RZLV vs SOUN Stock Comparison
Compare RZLV and SOUN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RZLV and SOUN?
SOUN leads the current stock comparison as SoundHound AI, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rezolve AI PLC vs SoundHound AI, Inc.
SOUN leads
SOUN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors RZLV on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support SOUN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Rezolve AI PLC
SoundHound AI, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SOUN over RZLV, 38 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. SOUN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience, while RZLV holds the stronger momentum profile. SOUN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RZLV. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SOUN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rezolve AI PLC and SoundHound AI, 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 RZLV and SOUN 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 Resilience20 vs 42SOUN +22
- Momentum37 vs 27RZLV +10
- Quality50 vs 47Even
- Value34 vs 35Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor SOUN. SOUN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience; RZLV 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 +1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
SOUN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RZLV and SOUN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SOUN (SoundHound AI, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
RZLV (Rezolve AI PLC): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 108.7% against 44.3%.
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
SOUNSOUN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RZLVRZLV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
RZLVRZLV on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
SOUNSOUN on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
RZLVRZLV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SOUN, analyst targets favor RZLV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RZLV | SOUN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +183.8% | +81% | RZLV has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +17.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SOUN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 37 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | SOUNon balance | revenue growth 5.4% vs 40.1%; EPS growth 45.8% vs -66.7%; TTM ROE -87.2% vs -30.2%; gross margin 66% vs 37.4%; operating margin -185.6% vs -89.7% — SOUN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 35 |
| Technicals | RZLV | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs -24% |
| Risk Resilience | SOUN | Risk Resilience 20 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | RZLV | Target upside 183.8% vs 81% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RZLV and SOUN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SOUN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SOUN +1
- 37 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- SOUN +4
- 36 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- SOUN +4
- 43 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- RZLV +7
- 45 vs 38
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when SOUN moved ahead of RZLV.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.50%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
SOUN 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 -0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.32%, 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.
- 1RZLV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge.
- 2RZLV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SOUN's advantage entirely.
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
SOUN leads on balance| Metric | RZLV | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 40.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.8% | -66.7% |
| Gross margin | 66% | 37.4% |
| Operating margin | -185.6% | -89.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -87.2% | -30.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.01 |
Performance
RZLV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RZLV | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -7.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.2% | -15.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | -7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | -19.4% |
| Year to date | -10.5% | -37% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.2% | -58.3% |
Technicals
RZLV has the stronger structure| Metric | RZLV | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.6 | 32.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 18.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | -24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 108.7% | 44.3% |
Risk
SOUN is the more resilient| Metric | RZLV | SOUN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 3.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | -0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.64 | -1.64 |
| Max drawdown | -72.2% | -73.4% |
| Current drawdown | -70.2% | -70.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 107.8% | 72% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.3% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RZLV or SOUN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SOUN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 38 against RZLV's 37. The edge comes from risk resilience. RZLV 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 RZLV or SOUN the better buy right now?
SOUN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SOUN over RZLV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SOUN leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; RZLV leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RZLV or SOUN?
Analyst price targets imply +183.8% upside for RZLV and +81% for SOUN, so the Street currently favors RZLV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SOUN. 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, RZLV or SOUN?
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, RZLV or SOUN?
RZLV 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, RZLV or SOUN?
RZLV 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, RZLV or SOUN?
SOUN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SOUN on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 RZLV more profitable than SOUN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66% vs 37.4%; operating margin -185.6% vs -89.7%; ttm roe -87.2% vs -30.2%. RZLV leads on one measure and SOUN on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is SOUN's lead over RZLV getting stronger or weaker?
SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 1 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when SOUN moved ahead of RZLV.
What would change the RZLV vs SOUN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RZLV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge; RZLV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SOUN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about RZLV and SOUN?
RZLV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. SOUN: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 RZLV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SOUN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RZLV and SOUN 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.