ACLS vs UCTT Stock Comparison
Compare ACLS and UCTT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ACLS and UCTT?
ACLS leads the current stock comparison as Axcelis Technologies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Axcelis Technologies, Inc. vs Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
ACLS leads
ACLS leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UCTT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ACLS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Axcelis Technologies, Inc.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACLS over UCTT, 48 versus 34 as of Sep 6, 2026. ACLS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while UCTT holds the stronger momentum profile. ACLS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UCTT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACLS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ACLS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Axcelis Technologies, Inc. and Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ACLS and UCTT 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.
- Quality30%58 vs 19ACLS +39
- Value30%62 vs 50ACLS +12
- Momentum25%21 vs 31UCTT +10
- Risk Resilience15%42 vs 34ACLS +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ACLS. ACLS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; UCTT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ACLS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ACLS and UCTT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACLS (Axcelis Technologies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
UCTT (Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 80.4% against 56.3%.
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
ACLSACLS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UCTTUCTT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACLSACLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
UCTTUCTT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
ACLSACLS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
UCTTUCTT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACLS, analyst targets favor UCTT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ACLS | UCTT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.7% | +70.3% | UCTT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +12.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | 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 ACLS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ACLS | 48 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | ACLSon balance | revenue growth 8.2% vs 20.8%; EPS growth 153.3% vs 147.5%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs -3.5%; gross margin 43% vs 15.8%; operating margin 10.3% vs 2.8% — ACLS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ACLS | Value 62 vs 50 |
| Technicals | UCTT | Price vs 50-day -15% vs -19.1%; vs 200-day -1.4% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | ACLS | Risk Resilience 42 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | UCTT | Target upside 21.7% vs 70.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ACLS and UCTT 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 14 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)
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 ACLS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ACLS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ACLS +14
- 48 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- ACLS +14
- 46 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- ACLS +19
- 56 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- ACLS +8
- 48 vs 40
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.01%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (33.34%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.63%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ACLS 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 +4.27%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +8.77%, 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.
- 1UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACLS's edge.
- 2UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3ACLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate ACLS'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
ACLS leads on balance| Metric | ACLS | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.2% | 20.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 153.3% | 147.5% |
| Gross margin | 43% | 15.8% |
| Operating margin | 10.3% | 2.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | -3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.04 | 1.21 |
Performance
UCTT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ACLS | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.4% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18% | -17% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -21.8% | -11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 39.9% | 43.3% |
| Year to date | 43.2% | 185.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 46.2% | 210.3% |
Technicals
UCTT has the stronger structure| Metric | ACLS | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15% | -19.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.4% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.3% | 80.4% |
Risk
ACLS is the more resilient| Metric | ACLS | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.69 | 3.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.84 | 1.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.26 | 2.61 |
| Max drawdown | -42.5% | -54.3% |
| Current drawdown | -39.9% | -49.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.2% | 87.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6% | -8.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ACLS or UCTT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACLS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 48 against UCTT's 34. The edge comes from quality and value. UCTT 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 ACLS or UCTT the better buy right now?
ACLS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 ACLS over UCTT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ACLS leads Quality by 39 points; ACLS leads Value by 12 points; UCTT leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ACLS or UCTT?
Analyst price targets imply +21.7% upside for ACLS and +70.3% for UCTT, so the Street currently favors UCTT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACLS. 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, ACLS or UCTT?
ACLS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, ACLS or UCTT?
UCTT 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, ACLS or UCTT?
UCTT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, ACLS or UCTT?
ACLS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ACLS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ACLS more profitable than UCTT?
ACLS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 43% vs 15.8%; operating margin 10.3% vs 2.8%; ttm roe 8.9% vs -3.5%.
Is ACLS's lead over UCTT getting stronger or weaker?
ACLS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ACLS vs UCTT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACLS's edge; UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; ACLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 14-point move would eliminate ACLS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ACLS and UCTT?
ACLS: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UCTT: 1 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 ACLS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UCTT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ACLS and UCTT with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.