Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
203,234 studies31 sourcesUpdated 25 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BYPLOS One

Stock-level volatility forecasting using machine learning: A comparative study of GARCH, Random Forest, LSTM, and GRU on US Equities

  1. 1School of Computer Science and Engineering, Vellore Institute of Technology, Chennai, India.

Abstract

Forecasting stock price volatility at the individual stock level is a major challenge in managing financial risks; it has widespread implications for portfolio strategies, pricing derivatives, and assessing regulatory capital adequacy. Although there have been a number of studies using market indices (e.g., VIX and associated methods) to study forecasting stock market volatility, relatively few studies have applied and evaluated a number of different types of machine learning methods to individual stock data in terms of actual (realised) volatility forecasting. This study fills that gap by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between stock price volatility and various machine learning techniques on a sample of ten well-known US stocks (across three sectors: technology, finance, and energy) based on data from January 2018 to December 2024 (1,759 trading days). We apply five modelling approaches: a classical GARCH(1,1) econometric model, a classical GJR-GARCH(1,1,1) econometric model, a Random Forest regressor, a two-layer Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, and a two-layer Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) network. For each of the four modelling techniques, we use a rolling 5-day annualised actual (realised) volatility forecast as our final outcomes. Evaluation of the prediction results of each of these models was measured using RMSE, MAE, QLIKE loss, parametric Value-at-Risk (VaR) measures, Expected Shortfall (ES), and the Kupiec backtest. We also performed an analysis of the prevailing market regime through K-Means clustering, created an ablation study using variables as features in the models to assess the importance of those variables, and developed a computational efficiency benchmark for each model. In terms of predicted errors, Random Forest was proven to yield very low predicted error (mean RMSE = 0.0892) in comparison to deep learning methods, plus Random Forest was able to be trained approximately 7 times faster than deep learning methods. GRU was ranked second and outperformed LSTM on most of the metrics used in this evaluation. GARCH models remain a viable option for estimating risk measures and calibrating VaR, especially during period of stability in the financial markets.

Related

  1. Enhancing Strawberry Yield Forecasting With Backcasted IoT Sensor Data and Machine Learning
    Tewodros Alemu Ayall, Andy Li, Matthew Beddows +2
    IEEE Transactions on AgriFood ElectronicsPeer-reviewedLicence not statedFull text5 citedPlant biologyOpenAlex
  2. A data-driven approach to hepatitis C forecasting using machine learning and epidemiological models
    Abdul Mannan, Jamshaid Ul Rahman, Ebraheem Alzahrani +1
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textMicrobiologyNeurosciencePLOS
  3. Forecasting the moisture content of live forest fuels with a transformer machine learning model and Sentinel-2 satellite data
    Ivan Kotzur, Matthias Boer, Vitus Benson +1
    EarthArXivPreprintCC BY-ND 4.0Full textEcologyEvolutionary biologyEarthArXiv
  4. A Context-Aware Framework for Biological Health Index Harmonization and Machine Learning-Aided Health Forecasting of Waterbodies
    Kazi Fouzia Akter Akter, Sakib Shahriar Shafin, Priyambada Joshi
    EcoEvoRxivPreprintCC BY-NC 4.0Full textEcologyEcoEvoRxiv
  5. Forecasting alcohol lapse risk up to two weeks in advance using time-lagged machine learning models
    Kendra Wyant, Gaylen E. Fronk, Jiachen Yu +2
    PLOS OnePeer-reviewedCC BY 4.0Full textEcologyStatisticsPLOS
BibTeX
@article{pragadeeshwaran2026stocklevel,
  title = {{Stock-level volatility forecasting using machine learning: A comparative study of GARCH, Random Forest, LSTM, and GRU on US Equities}},
  author = {R V Pragadeeshwaran and R Tarun Narayanan and R M Bhavadharini},
  journal = {PLOS One},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0354643},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354643},
  note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Stock-level volatility forecasting using machine learning: A comparative study of GARCH, Random Forest, LSTM, and GRU on US Equities
AU  - R V Pragadeeshwaran
AU  - R Tarun Narayanan
AU  - R M Bhavadharini
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/29
JO  - PLOS One
DO  - 10.1371/journal.pone.0354643
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0354643
AB  - Forecasting stock price volatility at the individual stock level is a major challenge in managing financial risks; it has widespread implications for portfolio strategies, pricing derivatives, and assessing regulatory capital adequacy. Although there have been a number of studies using market indices (e.g., VIX and associated methods) to study forecasting stock market volatility, relatively few studies have applied and evaluated a number of different types of machine learning methods to individual stock data in terms of actual (realised) volatility forecasting. This study fills that gap by presenting a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between stock price volatility and various machine learning techniques on a sample of ten well-known US stocks (across three sectors: technology, finance, and energy) based on data from January 2018 to December 2024 (1,759 trading days). We apply five modelling approaches: a classical GARCH(1,1) econometric model, a classical GJR-GARCH(1,1,1) econometric model, a Random Forest regressor, a two-layer Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, and a two-layer Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) network. For each of the four modelling techniques, we use a rolling 5-day annualised actual (realised) volatility forecast as our final outcomes. Evaluation of the prediction results of each of these models was measured using RMSE, MAE, QLIKE loss, parametric Value-at-Risk (VaR) measures, Expected Shortfall (ES), and the Kupiec backtest. We also performed an analysis of the prevailing market regime through K-Means clustering, created an ablation study using variables as features in the models to assess the importance of those variables, and developed a computational efficiency benchmark for each model. In terms of predicted errors, Random Forest was proven to yield very low predicted error (mean RMSE = 0.0892) in comparison to deep learning methods, plus Random Forest was able to be trained approximately 7 times faster than deep learning methods. GRU was ranked second and outperformed LSTM on most of the metrics used in this evaluation. GARCH models remain a viable option for estimating risk measures and calibrating VaR, especially during period of stability in the financial markets.
SN  - 1932-6203
ER  -