ARM vs MU Stock Comparison
MU currently leads ARM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 37. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between ARM and MU?
MU leads the current stock comparison as Micron Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares vs Micron Technology, Inc.
MU leads
MU leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality. Wall Street currently favors ARM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MU, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares
Micron Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over ARM, 57 versus 37 as of Oct 21, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality. 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 Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 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.
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 ARM and MU 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.
- Value24 vs 57MU +33
- Quality72 vs 99MU +27
- Momentum8 vs 15MU +7
- Risk Resilience39 vs 42Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in value and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MU's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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 value and quality.
ARM (Arm Holdings plc American Depositary Shares): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 62.8% against 43.4%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
MUMU on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 | +62.6% | +58.5% | ARM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +106.1% | +156.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 26 | 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 | 37 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MUon balance | revenue growth -13.5% vs 30.8%; EPS growth -13.8% vs 33.2%; TTM ROE 13% vs 91.8%; gross margin 95.3% vs 80.7%; operating margin 17.3% vs 75% — MU takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MU | Value 24 vs 57 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -14.8% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day 1.8% vs 24% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 39 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | ARM | Target upside 62.6% vs 58.5% |
✓ 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 two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +20
- 37 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +19
- 38 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +18
- 54 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +23
- 52 vs 75
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ARM
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MU 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.5%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.96%, 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 Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2ARM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
MU leads on balance| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -13.5% | 30.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -13.8% | 33.2% |
| Gross margin | 95.3% | 80.7% |
| Operating margin | 17.3% | 75% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13% | 91.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0.03 |
Performance
MU leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13.4% | -6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -33.7% | -18.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -22% | -6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26% | 99.4% |
| Year to date | 102.2% | 214% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.7% | 358% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21.1 | 29.1 |
| ADX (14) | 22.2 | 25.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.8% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.8% | 24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.8% | 43.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ARM | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.46 | 3.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | 2.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | 3.8 |
| Max drawdown | -49.7% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -49.7% | -26.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.2% | 81.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.4% | -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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against ARM's 37. The edge comes from value and quality. 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 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 MU over ARM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MU leads Value by 33 points; MU leads Quality by 27 points; MU leads Momentum by 7 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 +62.6% upside for ARM and +58.5% 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 33 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 7 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, 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. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in 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 80.7%; operating margin 17.3% vs 75%; ttm roe 13% vs 91.8%. 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 20 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. 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 Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; ARM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 ARM and MU?
ARM: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MU: 2 bullish / 2 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 ARM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ARM and MU 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.