APP vs WULF Stock Comparison
APP currently leads WULF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 30. The clearest difference is quality, while WULF has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between APP and WULF?
APP leads the current stock comparison as AppLovin Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AppLovin Corporation vs TeraWulf Inc.
APP leads
APP leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 22 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WULF on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support APP, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AppLovin Corporation
TeraWulf Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APP over WULF, 49 versus 30 as of Oct 31, 2026. APP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while WULF holds the stronger momentum profile. APP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WULF. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. APP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AppLovin Corporation 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 APP 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.
- Quality83 vs 30APP +53
- Risk Resilience31 vs 13APP +18
- Momentum21 vs 35WULF +14
- Value47 vs 34APP +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor APP. APP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; WULF keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
Largest factor move: Momentum -12
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
APP's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APP and WULF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APP (AppLovin Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
WULF (TeraWulf Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 97.5% 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
APPAPP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APPAPP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APPAPP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
WULFWULF on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
APPAPP on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 APP, analyst targets favor WULF. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | APP | WULF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +132.7% | +217.4% | WULF has more room |
| Target dispersion | +89% | +153.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APP | 49 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | APPon balance | revenue growth 4.4% vs 31.6%; EPS growth 5.6% vs -92.1%; TTM ROE 193.1% vs -17.1%; gross margin 88.5% vs 69.3%; operating margin 77.4% vs -228.5% — APP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | APP | Value 47 vs 34 |
| Technicals | WULF | Price vs 50-day -22.3% vs -20.1%; vs 200-day -41.1% vs -35.1% |
| Risk Resilience | APP | Risk Resilience 31 vs 13 |
| Analyst expectations | WULF | Target upside 132.7% vs 217.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APP 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 APP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30APP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APP +19
- 49 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- APP +25
- 52 vs 27
- 30 sessions ago
- APP +22
- 49 vs 27
- 90 sessions ago
- APP +27
- 56 vs 29
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.
2 bullish / 6 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only APP
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WULF
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active.
APP 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -10.36%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (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 Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to APP's edge.
- 2WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3APP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 6 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate APP'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
APP leads on balance| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.4% | 31.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.6% | -92.1% |
| Gross margin | 88.5% | 69.3% |
| Operating margin | 77.4% | -228.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 193.1% | -17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.11 | 35.56 |
Performance
WULF leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.2% | 3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.8% | -24.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -43.7% | -37.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -45.7% | -44.2% |
| Year to date | -61.4% | 2.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -63.1% | -19.1% |
Technicals
WULF has the stronger structure| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.2 | 42 |
| ADX (14) | 27.6 | 32.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -22.3% | -20.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -41.1% | -35.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.7% | 97.5% |
Risk
APP is the more resilient| Metric | APP | WULF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.28 | 3.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.07 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.37 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -68.8% | -60.9% |
| Current drawdown | -68.8% | -59.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 72.2% | 92.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.6% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APP or WULF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against WULF's 30. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 APP or WULF the better buy right now?
APP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 APP over WULF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. APP leads Quality by 53 points; APP leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; WULF leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APP or WULF?
Analyst price targets imply +132.7% upside for APP and +217.4% for WULF, so the Street currently favors WULF. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors APP. 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, APP or WULF?
APP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. APP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, APP or WULF?
APP 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, APP or WULF?
WULF on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, APP or WULF?
APP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APP on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 APP more profitable than WULF?
APP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 88.5% vs 69.3%; operating margin 77.4% vs -228.5%; ttm roe 193.1% vs -17.1%.
Is APP's lead over WULF getting stronger or weaker?
APP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 22 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the APP vs WULF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WULF closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to APP's edge; WULF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; APP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 6 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 19-point move would eliminate APP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about APP and WULF?
APP: 2 bullish / 6 bearish / 1 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 APP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WULF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare APP 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.