SDGR vs WULF Stock Comparison
Compare SDGR and WULF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SDGR and WULF?
SDGR leads the current stock comparison as Schrödinger, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Schrödinger, Inc. vs TeraWulf Inc.
SDGR leads
SDGR leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 31 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SDGR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Schrödinger, Inc.
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SDGR over WULF, 52 versus 31 as of Sep 11, 2026. SDGR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. SDGR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 21 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
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 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.
- Risk Resilience43 vs 13SDGR +30
- Quality51 vs 30SDGR +21
- Value52 vs 34SDGR +18
- Momentum57 vs 41SDGR +16
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SDGR. SDGR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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
SDGR's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
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 risk resilience and quality.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 87.5% against 69.8%.
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 16 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 | -0.1% | +130.7% | WULF 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 |
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 | 52 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 8.7% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 24.2% vs -10.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SDGR | Risk Resilience 43 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside -0.1% vs 130.7% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 SDGR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SDGR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SDGR +21
- 52 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- SDGR +26
- 56 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- SDGR +31
- 58 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- SDGR +30
- 57 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.61%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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
SDGR 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 +1.17%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 21-point move would eliminate SDGR'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
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
Split across windows| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10% | 8.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.9% | -6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 32.9% | -30.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 47.7% | 6% |
| Year to date | 5.1% | 40.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -3.3% | 75.4% |
Technicals
SDGR has the stronger structure| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.2 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 19.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.7% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24.2% | -10.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 69.8% | 87.5% |
Risk
SDGR is the more resilient| Metric | SDGR | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.59 | 3.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | 0.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | 1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -50.8% | -49.5% |
| Current drawdown | -16.5% | -44.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.1% | 91.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -8.9% |
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 Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SDGR over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SDGR leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; SDGR leads Quality by 21 points; SDGR leads Value by 18 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 -0.1% upside for SDGR and +130.7% 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 16 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 31 to 21 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 SDGR vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 21-point move would eliminate SDGR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SDGR and WULF?
SDGR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. 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.