CEVA vs FN Stock Comparison
FN currently leads CEVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 40. The clearest difference is value, while CEVA has the stronger momentum profile.
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 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FN.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FN over CEVA, 46 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. FN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CEVA holds the stronger momentum profile. FN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. FN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
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.
- Value35 vs 59FN +24
- Risk Resilience39 vs 54FN +15
- Momentum22 vs 13CEVA +9
- Quality59 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 2026-10-20, 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
FN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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 most heavily.
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 9 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 | +49.8% | +102.4% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +5.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | 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 | 40 vs 46 |
| 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 -2.6% vs -18.1%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -31.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FN | Risk Resilience 39 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside 49.8% vs 102.4% |
✓ 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 rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20FN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FN +6
- 40 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- FN +7
- 40 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- FN +17
- 46 vs 63
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 CEVA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.92%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.87%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CEVA 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 +3.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.16%, 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 Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -16.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | -30.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | -47.5% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | -17.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.5% | -11% |
Technicals
CEVA has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 35.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 21.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -18.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -31.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 66.9% |
Risk
FN is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | FN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.43 | 2.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -52.4% |
| Current drawdown | -42.3% | -52.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.2% | 76% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -7.9% |
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 Oct 22, 2026, scoring 46 against CEVA's 40. 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 Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 FN over CEVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FN leads Value by 24 points; FN leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; CEVA leads Momentum by 9 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 +49.8% upside for CEVA and +102.4% 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 9 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, 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. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 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 Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CEVA and FN?
CEVA: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FN: 0 bullish / 5 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 CEVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and FN 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.