CRUS vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare CRUS and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRUS and XLK?
CRUS leads the current stock comparison as Cirrus Logic, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cirrus Logic, Inc. vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support CRUS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over XLK, 65 versus 59 as of Sep 11, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while XLK holds the stronger momentum profile. CRUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cirrus Logic, Inc. and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 CRUS and XLK 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.
- Value72 vs 36CRUS +36
- Momentum45 vs 65XLK +20
- Risk Resilience69 vs 62CRUS +7
- Quality73 vs 74Even
3 of 4 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; XLK keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
CRUS's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRUS and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): 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
CRUSCRUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CRUS | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +39.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CRUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRUS | 65 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 72 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 2.7%; vs 200-day -16.8% vs 15% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 69 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRUS and XLK 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CRUS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +6
- 65 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +6
- 62 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- CRUS +17
- 60 vs 43
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.93%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CRUS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.98%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.32%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | CRUS | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.6% | — |
| Gross margin | 52.8% | — |
| Operating margin | 23% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | — |
Performance
XLK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CRUS | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.2% | 4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | -1.7% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.8% | 39.9% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | CRUS | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.1 | 54.1 |
| ADX (14) | 46.2 | 10.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.8% | 15% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.1% | 20.6% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | CRUS | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.08 | 1.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.11 | 1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -39.4% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.8% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRUS or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against XLK's 59. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. XLK 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 CRUS or XLK the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRUS over XLK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Value by 36 points; XLK leads Momentum by 20 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRUS or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +47.6% upside for CRUS and not covered for XLK. 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, CRUS or XLK?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 36 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, CRUS or XLK?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CRUS or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, CRUS or XLK?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 CRUS more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is CRUS's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CRUS vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; XLK's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 CRUS and XLK?
CRUS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. XLK: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 CRUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.