WULF vs CLSK

For growth investors, TeraWulf Inc.

(WULF) is the stronger pick with 102. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 102. 2% for CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK). CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) offers the better valuation at 12. 9x trailing P/E, making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate TeraWulf Inc. (WULF) a "Buy" — based on 12 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

Over the past 5 years, TeraWulf Inc.

(WULF) delivered a total return of +195. 3%, compared to -19. 8% for CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: WULF returned +161. 2% versus CLSK's -84. 3%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), TeraWulf Inc.

(WULF) is the lower-risk stock at 3. 25β versus CleanSpark, Inc. 's 3. 39β — meaning CLSK is approximately 4% more volatile than WULF relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 38% versus 2% for TeraWulf Inc. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), TeraWulf Inc.

(WULF) is pulling ahead at 102. 3% versus 102. 2% for CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: CleanSpark, Inc. grew EPS 262. 3% year-over-year, compared to 40. 0% for TeraWulf Inc.. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

CleanSpark, Inc.

(CLSK) is the more profitable company, earning 47. 6% net margin versus -51. 7% for TeraWulf Inc. — meaning it keeps 47. 6% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CLSK leads at 41. 6% versus -54. 4% for WULF. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — WULF leads at 55. 3%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

In this comparison, CLSK (0.

2% yield) pays a dividend. WULF does not pay a meaningful dividend and should not be held primarily for income.

For long-horizon retirement investors, TeraWulf Inc.

(WULF) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (+161. 2% 10Y return). CleanSpark, Inc. (CLSK) carries a higher beta of 3. 39 — meaning larger drawdowns in market downturns, which matters significantly when you cannot wait years for a recovery. Both have compounded well over 10 years (WULF: +161. 2%, CLSK: -84. 3%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (WULF (Financial Services) and CLSK (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.