AMAT vs TXN Stock Comparison
TXN currently leads AMAT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 45. The clearest difference is momentum, while AMAT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AMAT and TXN?
TXN leads the current stock comparison as Texas Instruments Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Applied Materials, Inc. vs Texas Instruments Incorporated
TXN leads
TXN leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AMAT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TXN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Applied Materials, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TXN over AMAT, 57 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. TXN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while AMAT holds the stronger quality profile. TXN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AMAT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TXN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. TXN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Applied Materials, Inc. and Texas Instruments Incorporated across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AMAT and TXN 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.
- Momentum8 vs 54TXN +46
- Risk Resilience45 vs 62TXN +17
- Quality88 vs 80AMAT +8
- Value32 vs 35Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TXN. TXN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; AMAT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TXN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMAT and TXN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TXN (Texas Instruments Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AMAT (Applied Materials, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 45.5% against 26.7%.
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
TXNTXN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TXNTXN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TXNTXN on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
TXNTXN on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
AMATAMAT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TXN, analyst targets favor AMAT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMAT | TXN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.5% | +16% | AMAT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +68.7% | +54.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 15 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AMAT | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 15.39% | 8.13% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.870 | $3.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.780 | $5.500 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #32 | #143 |
AMAT grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 15.39% a year against TXN's 8.13%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TXN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TXN | 45 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | TXNon balance | revenue growth 15.2% vs 13.2%; EPS growth -9.3% vs 25.9%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 35.8%; gross margin 49.4% vs 58.3%; operating margin 30.5% vs 37.3% — TXN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 32 vs 35 |
| Technicals | TXN | Price vs 50-day -14.3% vs 4.6%; vs 200-day -6.7% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TXN | Risk Resilience 45 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | AMAT | Target upside 49.5% vs 16% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMAT and TXN 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)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 TXN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20TXN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TXN +12
- 45 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- TXN +13
- 46 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 66 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- AMAT +2
- 57 vs 55
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when TXN moved ahead of AMAT.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AMAT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.00%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TXN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
TXN 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 +0.98%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.47%, 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.
- 1AMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to TXN's edge.
- 2AMAT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3TXN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
TXN leads on balance| Metric | AMAT | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.2% | 13.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -9.3% | 25.9% |
| Gross margin | 49.4% | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 30.5% | 37.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 35.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.78 |
Performance
TXN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AMAT | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.8% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.3% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.9% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.1% | 19.1% |
| Year to date | 57.6% | 60.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 79.9% | 58.3% |
Technicals
TXN has the stronger structure| Metric | AMAT | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.7 | 47.8 |
| ADX (14) | 24.8 | 14.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.3% | 4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.7% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.5% | 26.7% |
Risk
TXN is the more resilient| Metric | AMAT | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.69 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.22 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.95 | 2.14 |
| Max drawdown | -44% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -44% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 42.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.2% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMAT or TXN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TXN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against AMAT's 45. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. AMAT 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 AMAT or TXN the better buy right now?
TXN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 TXN over AMAT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TXN leads Momentum by 46 points; TXN leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; AMAT leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMAT or TXN?
Analyst price targets imply +49.5% upside for AMAT and +16% for TXN, so the Street currently favors AMAT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TXN. 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, AMAT or TXN?
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, AMAT or TXN?
TXN 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, AMAT or TXN?
TXN on the Momentum factor, by 46 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, AMAT or TXN?
TXN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXN on Risk Resilience, by 17 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AMAT more profitable than TXN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 49.4% vs 58.3%; operating margin 30.5% vs 37.3%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 35.8%. AMAT leads on one measure and TXN 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 TXN's lead over AMAT getting stronger or weaker?
TXN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when TXN moved ahead of AMAT.
What would change the AMAT vs TXN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to TXN's edge; AMAT's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; TXN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AMAT and TXN?
AMAT: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TXN: 3 bullish / 1 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 AMAT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TXN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMAT and TXN with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.