ALAB vs APH Stock Comparison
Compare ALAB and APH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ALAB and APH?
APH leads the current stock comparison as Amphenol Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock vs Amphenol Corporation
APH leads
APH leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support APH, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock
Amphenol Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APH over ALAB, 55 versus 51 as of Sep 6, 2026. APH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ALAB holds the stronger quality profile. APH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. APH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock and Amphenol Corporation 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 APH 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 66ALAB +19
- Value30%24 vs 43APH +19
- Risk Resilience15%40 vs 53APH +13
- Momentum25%51 vs 57APH +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor APH. APH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ALAB keeps a meaningful quality 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.
APH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALAB and APH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APH (Amphenol Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ALAB (Astera Labs, Inc. Common Stock): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 63% against 37.6%.
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
APHAPH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALABALAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APHAPH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
APHAPH on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
APHAPH on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
APHAPH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ALAB | APH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.9% | +126.8% | APH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +110.8% | +26.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APH | 51 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 27.3% vs 14.9%; EPS growth 89.4% vs 89.5%; TTM ROE 25.2% vs 37.2%; gross margin 75.1% vs 38.5%; operating margin 22.8% vs 27.2% |
| Valuation | APH | Value 24 vs 43 |
| Technicals | ALAB | Price vs 50-day -6.1% vs 2.8%; vs 200-day 37.9% vs 13.6% |
| Risk Resilience | APH | Risk Resilience 40 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | APH | Target upside 0.9% vs 126.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALAB and APH 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 APH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5APH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APH +4
- 51 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- ALAB +1
- 50 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- APH +4
- 55 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- APH +2
- 54 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when APH moved ahead of ALAB.
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%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.50%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ALAB is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.87%, 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.
- 1ALAB closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to APH's edge.
- 2ALAB's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3APH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
Split| Metric | ALAB | APH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 27.3% | 14.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 89.4% | 89.5% |
| Gross margin | 75.1% | 38.5% |
| Operating margin | 22.8% | 27.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.2% | 37.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 1.21 |
Performance
ALAB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ALAB | APH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.2% | 5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.1% | -2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.1% | 19.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 160.4% | 25.5% |
| Year to date | 86.6% | 22.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 75.8% | 49.6% |
Technicals
ALAB has the stronger structure| Metric | ALAB | APH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 46.8 | 44.3 |
| ADX (14) | 14.4 | 8.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.1% | 2.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 37.9% | 13.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 63% | 37.6% |
Risk
APH is the more resilient| Metric | ALAB | APH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.56 | 1.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.96 | 0.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.48 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -60.2% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -35.7% | -6.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 98.3% | 45.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.7% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALAB or APH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 55 against ALAB's 51. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ALAB 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 ALAB or APH the better buy right now?
APH 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 APH over ALAB?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ALAB leads Quality by 19 points; APH leads Value by 19 points; APH leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALAB or APH?
Analyst price targets imply +0.9% upside for ALAB and +126.8% for APH, so the Street currently favors APH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ALAB or APH?
APH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. APH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 APH?
ALAB 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 APH?
APH on the Momentum factor, by 6 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 APH?
APH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APH on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 ALAB more profitable than APH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 75.1% vs 38.5%; operating margin 22.8% vs 27.2%; ttm roe 25.2% vs 37.2%. ALAB leads on one measure and APH 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 APH's lead over ALAB getting stronger or weaker?
APH lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when APH moved ahead of ALAB.
What would change the ALAB vs APH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALAB closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to APH's edge; ALAB's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; APH's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 APH?
ALAB: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. APH: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 APH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALAB and APH 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.