CEVA vs ONDS Stock Comparison
ONDS currently leads CEVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 43 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CEVA and ONDS?
ONDS leads the current stock comparison as Ondas Holdings Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CEVA, Inc. vs Ondas Holdings Inc.
ONDS leads
ONDS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CEVA.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support ONDS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CEVA, Inc.
Ondas Holdings Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ONDS over CEVA, 43 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. ONDS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. ONDS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ONDS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. ONDS lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONDS now leads by 3.
Compare CEVA, Inc. and Ondas Holdings Inc. 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 ONDS 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.
- Quality59 vs 68ONDS +9
- Momentum22 vs 25Even
- Risk Resilience39 vs 41Even
- Value35 vs 34Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor ONDS. ONDS’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
ONDS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CEVA and ONDS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ONDS (Ondas Holdings Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 47.7%.
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
ONDSONDS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CEVACEVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ONDSONDS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ONDSONDS 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 | ONDS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.8% | +195.1% | ONDS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +5.4% | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ONDS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 40 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | CEVAon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs 67.1%; EPS growth 37.5% vs -131%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 18.8%; gross margin 87.4% vs 43.7%; operating margin -8.3% vs -140.4% — CEVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CEVA | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -17.7%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -34.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 39 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | ONDS | Target upside 49.8% vs 195.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CEVA and ONDS 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ONDS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ONDS lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONDS now leads by 3.
- Today
- ONDS +3
- 40 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- ONDS +3
- 40 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- CEVA +6
- 54 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ONDS +13
- 46 vs 59
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%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only ONDS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (22.24%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ONDS 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 +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 +2.79%, 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 Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONDS's edge.
- 2CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ONDS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
CEVA leads on balance| Metric | CEVA | ONDS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 67.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | -131% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 43.7% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | -140.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 18.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0 |
Performance
CEVA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | ONDS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -9.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -21% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | -23.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | -43.9% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | -36.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.5% | -25.6% |
Technicals
CEVA has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | ONDS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 24.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 23.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -17.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -34.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 47.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CEVA | ONDS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.43 | 3.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.52 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -56.9% |
| Current drawdown | -42.3% | -56.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.2% | 108.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -9.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CEVA or ONDS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ONDS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 43 against CEVA's 40. The edge comes from 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 CEVA or ONDS the better buy right now?
ONDS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ONDS over CEVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ONDS leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CEVA or ONDS?
Analyst price targets imply +49.8% upside for CEVA and +195.1% for ONDS, so the Street currently favors ONDS. 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 ONDS?
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, CEVA or ONDS?
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 ONDS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 ONDS?
ONDS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ONDS 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 CEVA more profitable than ONDS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 43.7%; operating margin -8.3% vs -140.4%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 18.8%. CEVA leads on two measures and ONDS on one measure, 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 ONDS's lead over CEVA getting stronger or weaker?
ONDS lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ONDS now leads by 3. 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 ONDS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEVA closes the Quality gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to ONDS's edge; CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ONDS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 CEVA and ONDS?
CEVA: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ONDS: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 ONDS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and ONDS 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.