TMC vs WOR Stock Comparison
WOR currently leads TMC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 33. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between TMC and WOR?
WOR leads the current stock comparison as Worthington Industries, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
TMC the metals company inc. vs Worthington Industries, Inc.
WOR leads
WOR leads by 31 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 23 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TMC on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support WOR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
TMC the metals company inc.
Worthington Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WOR over TMC, 64 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. WOR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. WOR 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 WOR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. WOR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 31 points over 30 sessions.
Compare TMC the metals company inc. and Worthington Industries, 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 TMC and WOR 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.
- Momentum26 vs 70WOR +44
- Risk Resilience35 vs 72WOR +37
- Quality39 vs 53WOR +14
4 of 5 evidence groups favor WOR. WOR’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 +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, 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.
WOR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TMC and WOR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
WOR (Worthington Industries, 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 21.9%.
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
WORWOR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WORWOR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WORWOR on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
WORWOR on Risk Resilience, by 37 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 WOR, analyst targets favor TMC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TMC | WOR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +284.6% | +15.3% | TMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +11.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Strong Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 WOR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | WOR | 33 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | WORon balance | revenue growth 0% vs -1.9%; EPS growth -180% vs 6.5%; TTM ROE 9.5% vs 15.8% — WOR takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | WOR | Price vs 50-day -30.5% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day -43.4% vs 12.9% |
| Risk Resilience | WOR | Risk Resilience 35 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | TMC | Target upside 284.6% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TMC and WOR 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 31 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 WOR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28WOR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 31 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- WOR +31
- 33 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- WOR +31
- 33 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- WOR +23
- 37 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- WOR +3
- 59 vs 62
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only TMC
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (32.22%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.67%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only WOR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.98%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
WOR 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 -8.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.3%, 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to WOR's edge.
- 2TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3WOR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
WOR leads on balance| Metric | TMC | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -1.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -180% | 6.5% |
| Gross margin | 0% | 27.3% |
| Operating margin | 0% | 6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.5% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.34 |
Performance
WOR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | TMC | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.7% | -2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -27.1% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -22.7% | 14.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -43.1% | 18.1% |
| Year to date | -54.6% | 23.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -60.7% | 8.6% |
Technicals
WOR has the stronger structure| Metric | TMC | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.1 | 61 |
| ADX (14) | 29.8 | 31.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -30.5% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -43.4% | 12.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 85.5% | 21.9% |
Risk
WOR is the more resilient| Metric | TMC | WOR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.47 | 0.89 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.59 | 0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.04 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -74.7% | -20.5% |
| Current drawdown | -70.3% | -2.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 91.7% | 30% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.7% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TMC or WOR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WOR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 64 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 TMC or WOR the better buy right now?
WOR 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 WOR over TMC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WOR leads Momentum by 44 points; WOR leads Risk Resilience by 37 points; WOR leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TMC or WOR?
Analyst price targets imply +284.6% upside for TMC and +15.3% for WOR, so the Street currently favors TMC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WOR. 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, TMC or WOR?
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, TMC or WOR?
WOR 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, TMC or WOR?
WOR on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, TMC or WOR?
WOR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WOR on Risk Resilience, by 37 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 TMC more profitable than WOR?
WOR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 0% vs 27.3%; operating margin 0% vs 6%; ttm roe 9.5% vs 15.8%.
Is WOR's lead over TMC getting stronger or weaker?
WOR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 31 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 TMC vs WOR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMC closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to WOR's edge; TMC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WOR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 TMC and WOR?
TMC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. WOR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 TMC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WOR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TMC and WOR 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.