RZLV vs TEM Stock Comparison
Compare RZLV and TEM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RZLV and TEM?
RZLV leads the current stock comparison as Rezolve AI PLC, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rezolve AI PLC vs Tempus AI, Inc.
RZLV leads
RZLV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from TEM.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support RZLV, and the lead recently changed hands.
Rezolve AI PLC
Tempus AI, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RZLV over TEM, 37 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 2026. RZLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while TEM holds the stronger momentum profile. RZLV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RZLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. RZLV lead: Reversed — TEM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RZLV now leads by 1.
Compare Rezolve AI PLC and Tempus 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 TEM 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.
- Quality50 vs 29RZLV +21
- Momentum37 vs 49TEM +12
- Risk Resilience20 vs 28TEM +8
- Value34 vs 35Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor RZLV. RZLV’s edge is concentrated in quality; TEM 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: RZLV moved ahead of TEM in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RZLV and TEM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RZLV (Rezolve AI PLC): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
TEM (Tempus AI, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 116.7% against 108.7%.
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
RZLVRZLV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TEMTEM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TEMTEM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
TEMTEM on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
RZLVRZLV 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 | RZLV | TEM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +183.8% | +14.7% | RZLV has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +44.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RZLV. 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 36 |
| Fundamentals | TEMon balance | revenue growth 5.4% vs 9.9%; EPS growth 45.8% vs 104.3%; TTM ROE -87.2% vs -54.7%; gross margin 66% vs 64%; operating margin -185.6% vs -19.8% — TEM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 35 |
| Technicals | TEM | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs 5.5%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | TEM | Risk Resilience 20 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | RZLV | Target upside 183.8% vs 14.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RZLV and TEM 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 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 RZLV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RZLV lead: Reversed — TEM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RZLV now leads by 1.
- Today
- RZLV +1
- 37 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- TEM +5
- 36 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- TEM +1
- 43 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- RZLV +4
- 45 vs 41
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when RZLV moved ahead of TEM.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.71%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.49%)
TEM is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.46%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1TEM closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to RZLV's edge.
- 2TEM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RZLV 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
TEM leads on balance| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.8% | 104.3% |
| Gross margin | 66% | 64% |
| Operating margin | -185.6% | -19.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -87.2% | -54.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 3.25 |
Performance
TEM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.2% | 7.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | 18.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | 11.5% |
| Year to date | -10.5% | -0.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.2% | -26.8% |
Technicals
TEM has the stronger structure| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.6 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 27.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | 5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 108.7% | 116.7% |
Risk
TEM is the more resilient| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 2.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | -0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.64 | -0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -72.2% | -59.8% |
| Current drawdown | -70.2% | -43.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 107.8% | 72.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.3% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RZLV or TEM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RZLV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against TEM's 36. The edge comes from quality. TEM 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 TEM the better buy right now?
RZLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 RZLV over TEM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RZLV leads Quality by 21 points; TEM leads Momentum by 12 points; TEM leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RZLV or TEM?
Analyst price targets imply +183.8% upside for RZLV and +14.7% for TEM, so the Street currently favors RZLV. 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, RZLV or TEM?
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 TEM?
TEM 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 TEM?
TEM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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 TEM?
TEM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TEM on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 TEM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66% vs 64%; operating margin -185.6% vs -19.8%; ttm roe -87.2% vs -54.7%. RZLV leads on one measure and TEM 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 RZLV's lead over TEM getting stronger or weaker?
RZLV lead: Reversed — TEM led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; RZLV now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when RZLV moved ahead of TEM.
What would change the RZLV vs TEM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TEM closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to RZLV's edge; TEM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RZLV 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.
What do the current signals say about RZLV and TEM?
RZLV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. TEM: 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 RZLV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TEM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RZLV and TEM 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.