ENTG vs GFS Stock Comparison
GFS currently leads ENTG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 41. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between ENTG and GFS?
GFS leads the current stock comparison as GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Entegris, Inc. vs GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
GFS leads
GFS leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ENTG.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GFS, and the lead recently changed hands.
Entegris, Inc.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GFS over ENTG, 49 versus 41 as of Oct 21, 2026. GFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. GFS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GFS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. GFS lead: Reversed — ENTG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GFS now leads by 8.
Compare Entegris, Inc. and GLOBALFOUNDRIES 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 ENTG and GFS 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.
- Value44 vs 63GFS +19
- Momentum31 vs 39GFS +8
- Quality45 vs 46Even
- Risk Resilience46 vs 45Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GFS. GFS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, 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.
GFS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENTG and GFS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GFS (GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ENTG (Entegris, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 46.5% against 41.4%.
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
GFSGFS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GFSGFS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GFSGFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
GFSGFS on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
GFSGFS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GFSGFS 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 | ENTG | GFS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.1% | +65.5% | GFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.4% | +112.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GFS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GFS | 41 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | ENTGon balance | revenue growth 8.8% vs 9.3%; EPS growth 1.7% vs 57.9%; TTM ROE 7.6% vs 6.1%; gross margin 45.5% vs 27.4%; operating margin 30% vs 11.6% — ENTG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GFS | Value 44 vs 63 |
| Technicals | ENTG | Price vs 50-day 0% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day 4.8% vs -14.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | GFS | Target upside 22.1% vs 65.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENTG and GFS 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 8 points.
- Only 3 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 GFS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GFS lead: Reversed — ENTG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GFS now leads by 8.
- Today
- GFS +8
- 41 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- GFS +10
- 43 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- ENTG +1
- 53 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- ENTG +2
- 55 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when GFS moved ahead of ENTG.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ENTG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.25%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
Only GFS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.79%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ENTG 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 +3.35%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.47%, 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.
- 1ENTG closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to GFS's edge.
- 2ENTG's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3GFS 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
ENTG leads on balance| Metric | ENTG | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.8% | 9.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.7% | 57.9% |
| Gross margin | 45.5% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | 30% | 11.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.6% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.86 | 0.14 |
Performance
ENTG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | ENTG | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.3% | 0.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | -2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | -19.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.8% | -15.7% |
| Year to date | 69.6% | 34.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 57.8% | 36% |
Technicals
ENTG has the stronger structure| Metric | ENTG | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.4 | 46.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 9.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.8% | -14.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.5% | 41.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ENTG | GFS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.22 | 2.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.95 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.52 | 1.23 |
| Max drawdown | -41.8% | -52.5% |
| Current drawdown | -22.3% | -47.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.1% | 59.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.9% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENTG or GFS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GFS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against ENTG's 41. The edge comes from value and momentum. 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 ENTG or GFS the better buy right now?
GFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GFS over ENTG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GFS leads Value by 19 points; GFS leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENTG or GFS?
Analyst price targets imply +22.1% upside for ENTG and +65.5% for GFS, so the Street currently favors GFS. 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, ENTG or GFS?
GFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, ENTG or GFS?
GFS 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, ENTG or GFS?
GFS on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, ENTG or GFS?
GFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GFS 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 ENTG more profitable than GFS?
ENTG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.5% vs 27.4%; operating margin 30% vs 11.6%; ttm roe 7.6% vs 6.1%.
Is GFS's lead over ENTG getting stronger or weaker?
GFS lead: Reversed — ENTG led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GFS now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when GFS moved ahead of ENTG.
What would change the ENTG vs GFS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ENTG closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to GFS's edge; ENTG's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; GFS 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 ENTG and GFS?
ENTG: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GFS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 ENTG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GFS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ENTG and GFS 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.