RZLV vs WULF Stock Comparison
Compare RZLV and WULF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RZLV and WULF?
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 TeraWulf Inc.
RZLV leads
RZLV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support RZLV, and its lead is narrowing.
Rezolve AI PLC
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RZLV over WULF, 37 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. RZLV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while WULF holds the stronger momentum profile. RZLV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RZLV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. RZLV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rezolve AI PLC and TeraWulf 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 WULF 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 30RZLV +20
- Risk Resilience20 vs 13RZLV +7
- Momentum37 vs 41WULF +4
- Value34 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor RZLV. RZLV’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; WULF 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 -9
New signals
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
RZLV's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RZLV and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RZLV (Rezolve AI PLC): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
RZLVRZLV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WULFWULF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
RZLVRZLV on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +183.8% | +130.7% | RZLV has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +121.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | RZLV | 37 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | WULFon balance | revenue growth 5.4% vs 31.6%; EPS growth 45.8% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE -87.2% vs -17.1%; gross margin 66% vs 69.3%; operating margin -185.6% vs -228.5% — WULF takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 34 vs 34 |
| Technicals | WULF | Price vs 50-day -9.9% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day -14.2% vs -10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | RZLV | Risk Resilience 20 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | RZLV | Target upside 183.8% vs 130.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RZLV and WULF 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.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RZLV +6
- 37 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- RZLV +6
- 36 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- RZLV +16
- 43 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- RZLV +18
- 45 vs 27
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
WULF 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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.72%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1WULF closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to RZLV's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3RZLV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate RZLV'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
WULF leads on balance| Metric | RZLV | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 45.8% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 66% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | -185.6% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -87.2% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 35.56 |
Performance
WULF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RZLV | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.2% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.8% | -30.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.4% | 6% |
| Year to date | -10.5% | 40.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.2% | 75.4% |
Technicals
WULF has the stronger structure| Metric | RZLV | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.6 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.5 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.9% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.2% | -10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 108.7% | 87.5% |
Risk
RZLV is the more resilient| Metric | RZLV | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 3.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.34 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.64 | 1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -72.2% | -49.5% |
| Current drawdown | -70.2% | -44.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 107.8% | 91.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.3% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RZLV or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RZLV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. WULF 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 WULF the better buy right now?
RZLV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RZLV over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RZLV leads Quality by 20 points; RZLV leads Risk Resilience by 7 points; WULF leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RZLV or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply +183.8% upside for RZLV and +130.7% for WULF, 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 WULF?
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 WULF?
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 WULF?
WULF on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 WULF?
RZLV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RZLV 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 RZLV more profitable than WULF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66% vs 69.3%; operating margin -185.6% vs -228.5%; ttm roe -87.2% vs -17.1%. RZLV leads on one measure and WULF 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 WULF getting stronger or weaker?
RZLV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the RZLV vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to RZLV's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; RZLV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate RZLV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about RZLV and WULF?
RZLV: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral. WULF: 1 bullish / 2 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 WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RZLV and WULF 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.