SDGR vs WULF Stock Comparison
SDGR currently leads WULF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 31. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between SDGR and WULF?
SDGR leads the current stock comparison as Schrödinger, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schrödinger, Inc. vs TeraWulf Inc.
SDGR leads
SDGR leads by 25 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SDGR, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Schrödinger, Inc.
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SDGR over WULF, 56 versus 31 as of Oct 31, 2026. SDGR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. SDGR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SDGR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. SDGR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 25 points over 30 sessions. SDGR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Schrödinger, Inc. and TeraWulf Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare SDGR 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.
- Momentum73 vs 41SDGR +32
- Risk Resilience43 vs 13SDGR +30
- Quality51 vs 30SDGR +21
- Value52 vs 34SDGR +18
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SDGR. SDGR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +14
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SDGR's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SDGR and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SDGR (Schrödinger, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
SDGRSDGR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SDGRSDGR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SDGRSDGR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
SDGRSDGR on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
SDGRSDGR on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
WULFWULF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SDGR, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SDGR | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -30% | +217.4% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +153.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SDGR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SDGR | 56 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | SDGRon balance | EPS growth 109.9% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE -16.4% vs -17.1%; gross margin 56.9% vs 69.3%; operating margin -59.2% vs -228.5% — SDGR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SDGR | Value 52 vs 34 |
| Technicals | SDGR | Price vs 50-day 10.3% vs -20.9%; vs 200-day 85.4% vs -25.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SDGR | Risk Resilience 43 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside -30% vs 217.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SDGR and WULF and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 25 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 SDGR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SDGR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 25 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SDGR +25
- 56 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- SDGR +18
- 45 vs 27
- 30 sessions ago
- SDGR +23
- 51 vs 28
- 90 sessions ago
- SDGR +28
- 56 vs 28
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only SDGR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (47.73%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WULF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.11%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -9.5%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -8%, 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.
- 1WULF closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SDGR's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SDGR'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
SDGR leads on balance| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.5% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 109.9% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 56.9% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | -59.2% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -16.4% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.33 | 35.56 |
Performance
SDGR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 29.2% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.6% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 98.2% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 162.5% | -33% |
| Year to date | 71.6% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 37.1% | -2.1% |
Technicals
SDGR has the stronger structure| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.9 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 33.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.3% | -20.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 85.4% | -25.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 103.6% | 94.3% |
Risk
SDGR is the more resilient| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.68 | 3.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -49.1% | -60.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -53.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 65.2% | 92.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SDGR or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SDGR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 SDGR or WULF the better buy right now?
SDGR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SDGR over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SDGR leads Momentum by 32 points; SDGR leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; SDGR leads Quality by 21 points. SDGR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WULF simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, SDGR or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply -30% upside for SDGR and +217.4% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SDGR. 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, SDGR or WULF?
SDGR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SDGR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, SDGR or WULF?
SDGR 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, SDGR or WULF?
SDGR on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, SDGR or WULF?
SDGR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SDGR on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 SDGR more profitable than WULF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.9% vs 69.3%; operating margin -59.2% vs -228.5%; ttm roe -16.4% vs -17.1%. SDGR leads on two measures and WULF on one measure, 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 SDGR's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
SDGR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 25 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SDGR vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to SDGR's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SDGR'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 SDGR and WULF?
SDGR: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 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 SDGR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SDGR 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.