ALGM vs CAMT Stock Comparison
Compare ALGM and CAMT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ALGM and CAMT?
CAMT leads the current stock comparison as Camtek Ltd., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. vs Camtek Ltd.
CAMT leads
CAMT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ALGM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CAMT, and its lead is narrowing.
Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.
Camtek Ltd.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CAMT over ALGM, 37 versus 36 as of Sep 6, 2026. CAMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. CAMT 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 CAMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CAMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Allegro MicroSystems, Inc. and Camtek Ltd. 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 ALGM and CAMT 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.
- Risk Resilience15%37 vs 41CAMT +4
- Value30%33 vs 34Even
- Momentum25%25 vs 24Even
- Quality30%48 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CAMT. CAMT’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
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.
CAMT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALGM and CAMT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CAMT (Camtek Ltd.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
ALGM (Allegro MicroSystems, Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
CAMTCAMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALGMALGM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CAMTCAMT on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ALGMALGM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CAMT, analyst targets favor ALGM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALGM | CAMT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +52.6% | +22.7% | ALGM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34% | +20.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 CAMT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 36 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | CAMTon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs 9.5%; EPS growth 201.1% vs -26.5%; TTM ROE 1.5% vs 5.8%; gross margin 47.2% vs 50.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 23.2% — CAMT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 33 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CAMT | Price vs 50-day -19.6% vs -1.5%; vs 200-day -7.1% vs -4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CAMT | Risk Resilience 37 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | ALGM | Target upside 52.6% vs 22.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALGM and CAMT 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 narrow at 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 CAMT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CAMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CAMT +1
- 36 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- ALGM +1
- 35 vs 34
- 30 sessions ago
- CAMT +10
- 39 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- ALGM +13
- 46 vs 33
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when CAMT moved ahead of ALGM.
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 / 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
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.73%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
ALGM 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 +2.95%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.91%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to CAMT's edge.
- 2ALGM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3CAMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate CAMT'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
CAMT leads on balance| Metric | ALGM | CAMT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 201.1% | -26.5% |
| Gross margin | 47.2% | 50.1% |
| Operating margin | 6.2% | 23.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.5% | 5.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.3 | 0.69 |
Performance
CAMT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ALGM | CAMT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.3% | 7.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.4% | -6.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -21.1% | -11.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.7% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | 38.8% | 37% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.7% | 89.9% |
Technicals
CAMT has the stronger structure| Metric | ALGM | CAMT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26 | 32.1 |
| ADX (14) | 27.5 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.6% | -1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.1% | -4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.8% | 66.7% |
Risk
CAMT is the more resilient| Metric | ALGM | CAMT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.9 | 2.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | 1.84 |
| Max drawdown | -49% | -38.8% |
| Current drawdown | -47.4% | -29.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 66.2% | 70.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALGM or CAMT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CAMT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 37 against ALGM's 36. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 ALGM or CAMT the better buy right now?
CAMT 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CAMT over ALGM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CAMT leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALGM or CAMT?
Analyst price targets imply +52.6% upside for ALGM and +22.7% for CAMT, so the Street currently favors ALGM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CAMT. 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, ALGM or CAMT?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, ALGM or CAMT?
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, ALGM or CAMT?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ALGM or CAMT?
CAMT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CAMT on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 ALGM more profitable than CAMT?
CAMT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.2% vs 50.1%; operating margin 6.2% vs 23.2%; ttm roe 1.5% vs 5.8%.
Is CAMT's lead over ALGM getting stronger or weaker?
CAMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 1 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-16, when CAMT moved ahead of ALGM.
What would change the ALGM vs CAMT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALGM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 4 points behind, the largest single contributor to CAMT's edge; ALGM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; CAMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate CAMT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ALGM and CAMT?
ALGM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CAMT: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ALGM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CAMT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ALGM and CAMT 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.