RZLV vs TEM Stock Comparison
TEM currently leads RZLV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 41 vs 35. The clearest difference is momentum, while RZLV has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between RZLV and TEM?
TEM leads the current stock comparison as Tempus AI, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rezolve AI PLC vs Tempus AI, Inc.
TEM leads
TEM leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from RZLV. Wall Street currently favors RZLV on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TEM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Rezolve AI PLC
Tempus AI, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TEM over RZLV, 41 versus 35 as of Oct 31, 2026. TEM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while RZLV holds the stronger quality profile. TEM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RZLV. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TEM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. TEM lead: Reversed — RZLV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TEM now leads by 6.
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 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 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.
- Momentum27 vs 71TEM +44
- Quality50 vs 29RZLV +21
- Risk Resilience20 vs 28TEM +8
- Value34 vs 35Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TEM. TEM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; RZLV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TEM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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
TEM (Tempus AI, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
RZLV (Rezolve AI PLC): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations.
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
TEMTEM 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 44 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
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TEM, analyst targets favor RZLV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RZLV | TEM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +345.2% | -3.4% | RZLV has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +60.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 10 | 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 TEM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TEM | 35 vs 41 |
| 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 -32.2% vs 2.8%; vs 200-day -39.5% vs 34.7% |
| Risk Resilience | TEM | Risk Resilience 20 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | RZLV | Target upside 345.2% vs -3.4% |
✓ 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 TEM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28TEM lead: Reversed — RZLV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TEM now leads by 6.
- Today
- TEM +6
- 35 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- RZLV +4
- 34 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- RZLV +1
- 36 vs 35
- 90 sessions ago
- RZLV +4
- 49 vs 45
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when TEM 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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only RZLV
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (17.45%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TEM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.52%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.35%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -7.22%, 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.
- 1RZLV closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to TEM's edge.
- 2RZLV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TEM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5% | 13.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -29.5% | -6.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -35.7% | 63.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -37.8% | 53.2% |
| Year to date | -40.5% | 29.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -67.6% | -14.1% |
Technicals
TEM has the stronger structure| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.4 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 35.9 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -32.2% | 2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -39.5% | 34.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 82.9% | 91% |
Risk
TEM is the more resilient| Metric | RZLV | TEM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 2.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.61 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.08 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -68.3% | -53.8% |
| Current drawdown | -67% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 100.7% | 75.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.8% | -6.5% |
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, TEM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 41 against RZLV's 35. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. RZLV 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 RZLV or TEM the better buy right now?
TEM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TEM over RZLV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TEM leads Momentum by 44 points; RZLV leads Quality by 21 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 +345.2% upside for RZLV and -3.4% for TEM, so the Street currently favors RZLV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TEM. 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 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 44 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 TEM's lead over RZLV getting stronger or weaker?
TEM lead: Reversed — RZLV led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; TEM now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when TEM moved ahead of RZLV.
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: RZLV closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to TEM's edge; RZLV's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TEM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. TEM: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on RZLV is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TEM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.