AEG vs ASML Stock Comparison
Aegon Ltd. vs ASML Holding N.V.
AEG leads
AEG leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ASML on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AEG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Aegon Ltd.
ASML Holding N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AEG over ASML, 60 versus 48 as of Sep 5, 2026. AEG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ASML holds the stronger quality profile. AEG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ASML. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AEG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Aegon Ltd. and ASML Holding N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AEG and ASML 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.
- Momentum25%50 vs 15AEG +35
- Value30%55 vs 27AEG +28
- Quality30%66 vs 92ASML +26
- Risk Resilience15%75 vs 56AEG +19
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AEG. AEG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ASML keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
AEG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEG and ASML both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AEG (Aegon Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ASML (ASML Holding N.V.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 33.4% against 15.8%.
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
AEGAEG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ASMLASML on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AEGAEG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
AEGAEG on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
AEGAEG on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
ASMLASML on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AEG, analyst targets favor ASML. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AEG | ASML | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -17.9% | +23.9% | ASML has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +43.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AEG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AEG | 60 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | ASMLon balance | TTM ROE 12.2% vs 52.4%; gross margin 82.5% vs 52.7%; operating margin 3.7% vs 35.4% — ASML takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AEG | Value 55 vs 27 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs -2.1%; vs 200-day 12.5% vs 15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AEG | Risk Resilience 75 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | ASML | Target upside -17.9% vs 23.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEG and ASML 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 AEG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4AEG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AEG +12
- 60 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- AEG +10
- 61 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- AEG +7
- 70 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- AEG +15
- 69 vs 54
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 8 when ASML moved ahead of AEG.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.30%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
AEG 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 -0.65%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.17%, 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.
- 1ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEG's edge.
- 2ASML's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3AEG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
ASML leads on balance| Metric | AEG | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 6.2% |
| Gross margin | 82.5% | 52.7% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 35.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.2% | 52.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0.09 |
Performance
ASML leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AEG | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.5% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.1% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.9% | 4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 28.5% | 32.6% |
| Year to date | 18.5% | 60.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 17.2% | 132.7% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AEG | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.6 | 27.7 |
| ADX (14) | 13 | 14.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | -2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.5% | 15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.8% | 33.4% |
Risk
AEG is the more resilient| Metric | AEG | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.82 | 2.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.75 | 1.92 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.95 | 3.33 |
| Max drawdown | -15.7% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -4.1% | -13.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.2% | 46.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEG or ASML?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AEG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 60 against ASML's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. ASML is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 AEG or ASML the better buy right now?
AEG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 AEG over ASML?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AEG leads Momentum by 35 points; AEG leads Value by 28 points; ASML leads Quality by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEG or ASML?
Analyst price targets imply -17.9% upside for AEG and +23.9% for ASML, so the Street currently favors ASML. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AEG. 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, AEG or ASML?
AEG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AEG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, AEG or ASML?
ASML 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, AEG or ASML?
AEG on the Momentum factor, by 35 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, AEG or ASML?
AEG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEG on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 AEG more profitable than ASML?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.5% vs 52.7%; operating margin 3.7% vs 35.4%; ttm roe 12.2% vs 52.4%. AEG leads on one measure and ASML on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is AEG's lead over ASML getting stronger or weaker?
AEG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-08, when ASML moved ahead of AEG.
What would change the AEG vs ASML verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to AEG's edge; ASML's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; AEG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AEG and ASML?
AEG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. ASML: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 AEG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ASML it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AEG and ASML 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.