SOUN vs WULF Stock Comparison
SOUN currently leads WULF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 37 vs 31. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while WULF has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between SOUN and WULF?
SOUN leads the current stock comparison as SoundHound AI, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
SoundHound AI, Inc. vs TeraWulf Inc.
SOUN leads
SOUN leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SOUN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
SoundHound AI, Inc.
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SOUN over WULF, 37 versus 31 as of Oct 31, 2026. SOUN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while WULF holds the stronger momentum profile. SOUN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SOUN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare SoundHound AI, 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 SOUN 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 Resilience40 vs 13SOUN +27
- Quality47 vs 30SOUN +17
- Momentum25 vs 41WULF +16
- Value35 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SOUN. SOUN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; WULF keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SOUN's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SOUN and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SOUN (SoundHound AI, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 94.3% against 54.7%.
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
SOUNSOUN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SOUNSOUN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WULFWULF on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
SOUNSOUN on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 SOUN, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SOUN | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +137% | +217.4% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60% | +153.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SOUN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SOUN | 37 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | SOUNon balance | revenue growth 40.1% vs 31.6%; EPS growth -66.7% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE -30.2% vs -17.1%; gross margin 37.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin -89.7% vs -228.5% — SOUN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 34 |
| Technicals | WULF | Price vs 50-day -28.5% vs -20.9%; vs 200-day -38.8% vs -25.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SOUN | Risk Resilience 40 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside 137% vs 217.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SOUN 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 been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SOUN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SOUN +6
- 37 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- SOUN +10
- 37 vs 27
- 30 sessions ago
- SOUN +11
- 39 vs 28
- 90 sessions ago
- SOUN +16
- 44 vs 28
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 23 when SOUN moved ahead of WULF.
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.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SOUN
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WULF
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active.
SOUN 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 -3.21%, AIQ 0 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate SOUN'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
SOUN leads on balance| Metric | SOUN | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 40.1% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -66.7% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 37.4% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | -89.7% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -30.2% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 35.56 |
Performance
WULF leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | SOUN | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.7% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -26.2% | -9.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.7% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -42.4% | -33% |
| Year to date | -55.4% | 16.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -75.3% | -2.1% |
Technicals
WULF has the stronger structure| Metric | SOUN | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.5 | 48.7 |
| ADX (14) | 47 | 33.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -28.5% | -20.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -38.8% | -25.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.7% | 94.3% |
Risk
SOUN is the more resilient| Metric | SOUN | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.03 | 3.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.72 | 0.23 |
| Sortino ratio | -3.1 | 0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -76.6% | -60.9% |
| Current drawdown | -75.5% | -53.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.2% | 92.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SOUN or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SOUN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 37 against WULF's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 SOUN or WULF the better buy right now?
SOUN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 SOUN over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SOUN leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; SOUN leads Quality by 17 points; WULF leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SOUN or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply +137% upside for SOUN and +217.4% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SOUN. 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, SOUN 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, SOUN or WULF?
SOUN 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, SOUN or WULF?
WULF 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, SOUN or WULF?
SOUN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SOUN on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 SOUN more profitable than WULF?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 37.4% vs 69.3%; operating margin -89.7% vs -228.5%; ttm roe -30.2% vs -17.1%. SOUN 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 SOUN's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
SOUN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-23, when SOUN moved ahead of WULF.
What would change the SOUN 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 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to SOUN's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SOUN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate SOUN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SOUN and WULF?
SOUN: 1 bullish / 5 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 SOUN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SOUN 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.