ALAB vs ALGM Stock Comparison
Compare ALAB and ALGM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ALAB and ALGM?
ALAB leads the current stock comparison as Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock vs Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.
ALAB leads
ALAB leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors ALGM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ALAB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock
Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALAB over ALGM, 51 versus 36 as of Sep 6, 2026. ALAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while ALGM holds the stronger value profile. ALAB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALGM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALAB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ALAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock and Allegro MicroSystems, 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 ALAB and ALGM 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%85 vs 48ALAB +37
- Momentum25%51 vs 25ALAB +26
- Value30%24 vs 33ALGM +9
- Risk Resilience15%40 vs 37Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ALAB. ALAB’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; ALGM keeps a meaningful value 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.
ALAB's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALAB and ALGM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALAB (Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ALGM (Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
ALABALAB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALGMALGM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ALGMALGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
ALABALAB on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
ALGMALGM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ALGMALGM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ALAB, analyst targets favor ALGM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALAB | ALGM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | +52.6% | ALGM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +110.8% | +34% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 6 | 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 ALAB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ALAB | 51 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | ALABon balance | revenue growth 27.3% vs 6.6%; EPS growth 89.4% vs 201.1%; TTM ROE 25.2% vs 1.5%; gross margin 75.1% vs 47.2%; operating margin 22.8% vs 6.2% — ALAB takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ALGM | Value 24 vs 33 |
| Technicals | ALAB | Price vs 50-day -6.1% vs -19.6%; vs 200-day 37.9% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | ALGM | Target upside 0.9% vs 52.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALAB and ALGM and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 ALAB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ALAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ALAB +15
- 51 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- ALAB +15
- 50 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- ALAB +16
- 55 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- ALAB +8
- 54 vs 46
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (46.77%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.74%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.51%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
ALAB 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 +9.75%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.95%, 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.
- 1ALGM closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALAB's edge.
- 2ALGM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3ALAB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ALAB leads on balance| Metric | ALAB | ALGM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27.3% | 6.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 89.4% | 201.1% |
| Gross margin | 75.1% | 47.2% |
| Operating margin | 22.8% | 6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.2% | 1.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.3 |
Performance
ALAB leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALAB | ALGM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.2% | 2.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.1% | -16.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.1% | -21.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 160.4% | 14.7% |
| Year to date | 86.6% | 38.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 75.8% | 22.7% |
Technicals
ALAB has the stronger structure| Metric | ALAB | ALGM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.8 | 26 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 27.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.1% | -19.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 37.9% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63% | 55.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ALAB | ALGM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.56 | 2.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.57 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.48 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -60.2% | -49% |
| Current drawdown | -35.7% | -47.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 98.3% | 66.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.7% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALAB or ALGM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALAB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against ALGM's 36. The edge comes from quality and momentum. ALGM is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 ALAB or ALGM the better buy right now?
ALAB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ALAB over ALGM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ALAB leads Quality by 37 points; ALAB leads Momentum by 26 points; ALGM leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALAB or ALGM?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for ALAB and +52.6% for ALGM, so the Street currently favors ALGM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ALAB. 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, ALAB or ALGM?
ALGM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ALGM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, ALAB or ALGM?
ALGM 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, ALAB or ALGM?
ALAB on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, ALAB or ALGM?
ALGM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALGM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ALAB more profitable than ALGM?
ALAB leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 75.1% vs 47.2%; operating margin 22.8% vs 6.2%; ttm roe 25.2% vs 1.5%.
Is ALAB's lead over ALGM getting stronger or weaker?
ALAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 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 ALAB vs ALGM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALGM closes the Quality gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALAB's edge; ALGM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; ALAB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ALAB and ALGM?
ALAB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ALGM: 3 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 ALAB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ALGM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALAB and ALGM 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.