CF vs SILV Stock Comparison
Compare CF and SILV across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CF and SILV?
SILV leads the current stock comparison as SilverCrest Metals Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs SilverCrest Metals Inc.
SILV leads
SILV leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CF on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 5 evidence groups support SILV, and its lead is narrowing.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
SilverCrest Metals Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SILV over CF, 71 versus 70 as of Sep 11, 2026. SILV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CF holds the stronger value profile. Analyst target upside, however, currently favors CF. 2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and SilverCrest Metals 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 CF and SILV 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 Resilience52 vs 93SILV +41
- Value64 vs 44CF +20
- Quality80 vs 87SILV +7
2 of 5 evidence groups favor SILV. SILV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CF keeps a meaningful value 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 -6
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SILV's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and SILV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SILV (SilverCrest Metals Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
SILVSILV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SILVSILV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CFCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
SILVSILV on Risk Resilience, by 41 points.
Analyst upside
CFCF on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SILV, analyst targets favor CF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | SILV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.7% | -26.4% | CF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | 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
2 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SILV. 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 | 70 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | SILVon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs 10.5%; EPS growth 18.8% vs 45.5%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 30.1%; gross margin 42.5% vs 60.5%; operating margin 38.1% vs 53.6% — SILV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CF | Value 64 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Risk Resilience | SILV | Risk Resilience 52 vs 93 |
| Analyst expectations | CF | Target upside -4.7% vs -26.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and SILV 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 2 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 SILV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SILV +1
- 70 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 71 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- SILV +12
- 64 vs 76
- 90 sessions ago
- SILV +6
- 70 vs 76
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when CF moved ahead of SILV.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.2%)
No active signals
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.51%, 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.
- 1CF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge.
- 2CF's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SILV'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
SILV leads on balance| Metric | CF | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 10.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 45.5% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 60.5% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 53.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 30.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CF | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | — |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.6% | — |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 23.7% | — |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.5% | — |
| Year to date | 74.7% | — |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 59.9% | — |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CF | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.4 | — |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | — |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.2% | — |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | — |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.1% | — |
Risk
SILV is the more resilient| Metric | CF | SILV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.92 | — |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | — |
| Sortino ratio | 2 | — |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | — |
| Current drawdown | -3% | — |
| Annualized volatility | 42.9% | — |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | — |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or SILV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SILV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 71 against CF's 70. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CF is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CF or SILV the better buy right now?
SILV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 5 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 SILV over CF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SILV leads Risk Resilience by 41 points; CF leads Value by 20 points; SILV leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or SILV?
Analyst price targets imply -4.7% upside for CF and -26.4% for SILV, so the Street currently favors CF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SILV. 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, CF or SILV?
CF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, CF or SILV?
SILV 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, CF or SILV?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CF or SILV?
SILV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SILV on Risk Resilience, by 41 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 CF more profitable than SILV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.5% vs 60.5%; operating margin 38.1% vs 53.6%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 30.1%. CF leads on one measure and SILV 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 SILV's lead over CF getting stronger or weaker?
SILV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when CF moved ahead of SILV.
What would change the CF vs SILV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to SILV's edge; CF's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; SILV starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate SILV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CF and SILV?
CF: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SILV: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CF and SILV 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.