STLD vs TMC Stock Comparison
STLD currently leads TMC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 33. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between STLD and TMC?
STLD leads the current stock comparison as Steel Dynamics, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Steel Dynamics, Inc. vs TMC the metals company inc.
STLD leads
STLD leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support STLD, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Steel Dynamics, Inc.
TMC the metals company inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STLD over TMC, 61 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. STLD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. STLD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TMC. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor STLD today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Steel Dynamics, Inc. and TMC the metals company 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 STLD and TMC 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.
- Momentum79 vs 26STLD +53
- Risk Resilience59 vs 35STLD +24
- Quality52 vs 39STLD +13
4 of 5 evidence groups favor STLD. STLD’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 +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
STLD's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STLD and TMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STLD (Steel Dynamics, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
TMC (TMC the metals company inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 85.5% against 29.3%.
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
STLDSTLD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STLDSTLD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
STLDSTLD on the Momentum factor, by 53 points.
Lower downside
STLDSTLD on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.
Analyst upside
TMCTMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors STLD, analyst targets favor TMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | STLD | TMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.3% | +284.6% | TMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.5% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | 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
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor STLD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | STLD | 61 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | STLD | EPS growth 43% vs -180%; TTM ROE 21% vs 9.5% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | STLD | Price vs 50-day 5.9% vs -30.5%; vs 200-day 12.1% vs -43.4% |
| Risk Resilience | STLD | Risk Resilience 59 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | TMC | Target upside 10.3% vs 284.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of STLD and TMC 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 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 STLD.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- STLD +28
- 61 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- STLD +24
- 57 vs 33
- 30 sessions ago
- STLD +14
- 51 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- TMC +17
- 42 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when STLD moved ahead of TMC.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only STLD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.17%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TMC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (32.22%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bullish Crossover.
TMC 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 -1.08%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -8.45%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1TMC closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to STLD's edge.
- 2TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3STLD'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
STLD leads on balance| Metric | STLD | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 43% | -180% |
| Gross margin | 15.8% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 12% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | 9.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0 |
Performance
STLD leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | STLD | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.8% | 5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12.8% | -27.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | -22.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.4% | -43.1% |
| Year to date | 47.5% | -54.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 63.4% | -60.7% |
Technicals
STLD has the stronger structure| Metric | STLD | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.1 | 31.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.6 | 29.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.9% | -30.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.1% | -43.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 85.5% |
Risk
STLD is the more resilient| Metric | STLD | TMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.07 | 3.47 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.3 | -0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.03 | -1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -22.6% | -74.7% |
| Current drawdown | -11.6% | -70.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 91.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -8.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, STLD or TMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STLD is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 61 against TMC's 33. 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 STLD or TMC the better buy right now?
STLD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 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 STLD over TMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. STLD leads Momentum by 53 points; STLD leads Risk Resilience by 24 points; STLD leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, STLD or TMC?
Analyst price targets imply +10.3% upside for STLD and +284.6% for TMC, so the Street currently favors TMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors STLD. 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, STLD or TMC?
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, STLD or TMC?
STLD 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, STLD or TMC?
STLD on the Momentum factor, by 53 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, STLD or TMC?
STLD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STLD on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 STLD more profitable than TMC?
STLD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 15.8% vs 0%; operating margin 12% vs 0%; ttm roe 21% vs 9.5%.
Is STLD's lead over TMC getting stronger or weaker?
STLD lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when STLD moved ahead of TMC.
What would change the STLD vs TMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMC closes the Momentum gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to STLD's edge; TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; STLD'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 STLD and TMC?
STLD: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. TMC: 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 STLD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare STLD and TMC 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.