CEVA vs FN Stock Comparison
Compare CEVA and FN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CEVA and FN?
FN leads the current stock comparison as Fabrinet, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CEVA, Inc. vs Fabrinet
FN leads
FN leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FN over CEVA, 45 versus 41 as of Sep 6, 2026. FN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CEVA holds the stronger momentum profile. FN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CEVA, Inc. and Fabrinet 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 CEVA and FN 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.
- Value30%35 vs 59FN +24
- Momentum25%26 vs 8CEVA +18
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 54FN +15
- Quality30%59 vs 56Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FN. FN’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CEVA keeps a meaningful momentum 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.
FN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CEVA and FN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FN (Fabrinet): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
FNFN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CEVACEVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
CEVACEVA on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
FNFN on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
FNFN 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 | CEVA | FN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +65.6% | +83.4% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +13.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FN | 41 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | FNon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs 8.4%; EPS growth 37.5% vs 11.5%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 21%; gross margin 87.4% vs 12%; operating margin -8.3% vs 10% — FN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FN | Value 35 vs 59 |
| Technicals | CEVA | Price vs 50-day -23.3% vs -15.6%; vs 200-day -6% vs -24% |
| Risk Resilience | FN | Risk Resilience 39 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside 65.6% vs 83.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CEVA and FN 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 FN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FN +4
- 41 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 41 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +17
- 45 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- CEVA +3
- 46 vs 43
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when CEVA moved ahead of FN.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.46%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.13%)
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.08%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FN 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 +1.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.14%, 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.
- 1CEVA closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge.
- 2CEVA's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FN'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
FN leads on balance| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 11.5% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 12% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | 10% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0 |
Performance
CEVA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -30.3% | -27.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.2% | -34.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 40.9% | -16.8% |
| Year to date | 25.2% | -10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.8% | 20.7% |
Technicals
CEVA has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.1 | 18.6 |
| ADX (14) | 31.9 | 21.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.3% | -15.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | -24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 85.6% | 87.5% |
Risk
FN is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.46 | 2.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 0.68 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -47.1% |
| Current drawdown | -46.2% | -45.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.4% | 74.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -7.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CEVA or FN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 45 against CEVA's 41. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CEVA is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CEVA or FN the better buy right now?
FN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FN over CEVA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FN leads Value by 24 points; CEVA leads Momentum by 18 points; FN leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CEVA or FN?
Analyst price targets imply +65.6% upside for CEVA and +83.4% for FN, so the Street currently favors FN. 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, CEVA or FN?
FN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, CEVA or FN?
CEVA 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, CEVA or FN?
CEVA on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, CEVA or FN?
FN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FN on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 CEVA more profitable than FN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 12%; operating margin -8.3% vs 10%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 21%. CEVA leads on one measure and FN 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 FN's lead over CEVA getting stronger or weaker?
FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when CEVA moved ahead of FN.
What would change the CEVA vs FN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEVA closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge; CEVA's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 13 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CEVA and FN?
CEVA: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. FN: 1 bullish / 4 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 CEVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and FN 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.