ERIC vs FN Stock Comparison
ERIC currently leads FN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while FN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ERIC and FN?
ERIC leads the current stock comparison as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ), with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) vs Fabrinet
ERIC leads
ERIC leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors FN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ERIC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
Fabrinet
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ERIC over FN, 65 versus 46 as of Oct 22, 2026. ERIC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while FN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ERIC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ERIC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. ERIC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) and Fabrinet 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 ERIC 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.
- Momentum72 vs 13ERIC +59
- Value70 vs 59ERIC +11
- Quality64 vs 56ERIC +8
- Risk Resilience46 vs 54FN +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ERIC. ERIC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; FN keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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%)
ERIC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ERIC and FN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ERIC (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
FN (Fabrinet): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 66.9% against 50%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
ERICERIC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ERICERIC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ERICERIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
ERICERIC on the Momentum factor, by 59 points.
Lower downside
FNFN on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
FNFN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ERIC, analyst targets favor FN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ERIC | FN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -13.7% | +102.4% | FN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +5.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Sell | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ERIC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ERIC | 65 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | ERICon balance | revenue growth 7.9% vs 8.4%; EPS growth 36.8% vs 11.5%; TTM ROE 18.1% vs 21%; gross margin 48% vs 12%; operating margin 14.4% vs 10% — ERIC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ERIC | Value 70 vs 59 |
| Technicals | ERIC | Price vs 50-day 4.9% vs -18.1%; vs 200-day -2.4% vs -31.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FN | Risk Resilience 46 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | FN | Target upside -13.7% vs 102.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ERIC and FN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 ERIC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ERIC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ERIC +19
- 65 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ERIC +21
- 68 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- FN +1
- 62 vs 63
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when ERIC 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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ERIC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FN
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.32%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
ERIC 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 -2.07%, 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.
- 1FN closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge.
- 2FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ERIC leads on balance| Metric | ERIC | FN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.9% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 36.8% | 11.5% |
| Gross margin | 48% | 12% |
| Operating margin | 14.4% | 10% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.1% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 0.41 | 0 |
Performance
ERIC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ERIC | FN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.7% | -16.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.5% | -12% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.2% | -30.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.9% | -47.5% |
| Year to date | 10.4% | -17.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.3% | -11% |
Technicals
ERIC has the stronger structure| Metric | ERIC | FN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.9 | 35.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 21.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.9% | -18.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.4% | -31.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 50% | 66.9% |
Risk
FN is the more resilient| Metric | ERIC | FN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.05 | 2.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.38 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.52 | 0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -33.4% | -52.4% |
| Current drawdown | -22.5% | -52.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.9% | 76% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -7.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ERIC or FN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ERIC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 65 against FN's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. FN is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 ERIC or FN the better buy right now?
ERIC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ERIC over FN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ERIC leads Momentum by 59 points; ERIC leads Value by 11 points; ERIC leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ERIC or FN?
Analyst price targets imply -13.7% upside for ERIC and +102.4% for FN, so the Street currently favors FN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ERIC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ERIC or FN?
ERIC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ERIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, ERIC or FN?
ERIC 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, ERIC or FN?
ERIC on the Momentum factor, by 59 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, ERIC or FN?
FN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FN on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 ERIC more profitable than FN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48% vs 12%; operating margin 14.4% vs 10%; ttm roe 18.1% vs 21%. ERIC leads on two measures and FN 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 ERIC's lead over FN getting stronger or weaker?
ERIC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when ERIC moved ahead of FN.
What would change the ERIC vs FN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FN closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge; FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 ERIC and FN?
ERIC: 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 ERIC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ERIC 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.