ARM vs MU Stock Comparison
Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares vs Micron Technology, Inc.
MU leads
MU leads by 28 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ARM on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MU, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares
Micron Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over ARM, 71 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. MU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ARM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MU today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares and Micron Technology, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%35 vs 80MU +45
- Value30%24 vs 53MU +29
- Quality30%72 vs 99MU +27
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 39Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ARM and MU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ARM (Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 80.6% against 55.3%.
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
MUMU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
MUMU on the Momentum factor, by 45 points.
Lower downside
MUMU carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ARMARM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MU, analyst targets favor ARM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ARM | MU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.7% | +42.7% | ARM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +119.4% | +128.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 24 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MU | 43 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | MUon balance | revenue growth -13.5% vs 73.7%; EPS growth -13.8% vs 104.4%; ROE 13% vs 70.6%; gross margin 95.3% vs 72.6%; operating margin 17.3% vs 65.8% — MU takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MU | Value 24 vs 53 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -17.8% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 21.1% vs 61.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 39 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | ARM | Target upside 54.7% vs 42.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ARM and MU and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 28 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +28
- 43 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +23
- 44 vs 67
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +14
- 49 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +24
- 46 vs 70
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (42.10%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.37%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (60.72%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
ARM 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 -0.62%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.08%, 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.
- 1ARM closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2ARM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3MU'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
MU leads on balance| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -13.5% | 73.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -13.8% | 104.4% |
| Gross margin | 95.3% | 72.6% |
| Operating margin | 17.3% | 65.8% |
| Return on equity | 13% | 70.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.06 |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.9 | 61.9 |
| ADX (14) | 10.7 | 9.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -17.8% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21.1% | 61.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 80.6% | 55.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.3 | 3.39 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 2.9 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.87 | 4.97 |
| Max drawdown | -48.8% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -45% | -21% |
| Annualized volatility | 76.2% | 81.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ARM or MU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 71 against ARM's 43. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 ARM or MU the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MU over ARM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MU leads Momentum by 45 points; MU leads Value by 29 points; MU leads Quality by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ARM or MU?
Analyst price targets imply +54.7% upside for ARM and +42.7% for MU, so the Street currently favors ARM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MU. 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, ARM or MU?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, ARM or MU?
MU 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, ARM or MU?
MU on the Momentum factor, by 45 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, ARM or MU?
MU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MU 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 ARM more profitable than MU?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 95.3% vs 72.6%; operating margin 17.3% vs 65.8%; roe 13% vs 70.6%. ARM leads on one measure and MU 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 MU's lead over ARM getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 28 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ARM vs MU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ARM closes the Momentum gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; ARM's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; MU'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 ARM and MU?
ARM: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MU: 4 bullish / 0 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 ARM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARM and MU 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.