FN vs WRD Stock Comparison
FN currently leads WRD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 36. The clearest difference is value, while WRD has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between FN and WRD?
FN leads the current stock comparison as Fabrinet, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fabrinet vs WeRide Inc.
FN leads
FN leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WRD on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support FN, and its lead is narrowing.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FN over WRD, 46 versus 36 as of Oct 22, 2026. FN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WRD holds the stronger momentum profile. FN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WRD. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Fabrinet and WeRide 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 FN and WRD 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.
- Value59 vs 35FN +24
- Quality56 vs 43FN +13
- Risk Resilience54 vs 41FN +13
- Momentum13 vs 25WRD +12
5 of 6 evidence groups favor FN. FN’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WRD 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.
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%)
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
FN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FN and WRD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FN (Fabrinet): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WRD (WeRide Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations.
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
FNFN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WRDWRD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
WRDWRD on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
FNFN on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
WRDWRD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FN, analyst targets favor WRD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FN | WRD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +102.4% | +165.8% | WRD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +5.1% | +11.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | 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
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 | 46 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | FNon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 103%; EPS growth 11.5% vs -5.4%; TTM ROE 21% vs -23.9%; gross margin 12% vs 32.8%; operating margin 10% vs -214.7% — FN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FN | Value 59 vs 35 |
| Technicals | FN | Price vs 50-day -18.1% vs -22.3%; vs 200-day -31.6% vs -35.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FN | Risk Resilience 54 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | WRD | Target upside 102.4% vs 165.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FN and WRD 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 FN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FN +10
- 46 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- FN +11
- 47 vs 36
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +21
- 58 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- FN +19
- 63 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when FN moved ahead of WRD.
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.
0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only WRD
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, 52-Week Low Proximity, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
WRD 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 +0.16%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.61%, 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.
- 1WRD closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge.
- 2WRD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate FN's advantage entirely.
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 | FN | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 103% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | -5.4% |
| Gross margin | 12% | 32.8% |
| Operating margin | 10% | -214.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | -23.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.1 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FN | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.9% | -4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -12% | -26.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -30.8% | -25% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.5% | -46.4% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | -50% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -11% | -58.8% |
Technicals
FN has the stronger structure| Metric | FN | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.4 | 29.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 33.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -18.1% | -22.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -31.6% | -35.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.9% | 60% |
Risk
FN is the more resilient| Metric | FN | WRD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.98 | 2.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -1.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -52.4% | -65.2% |
| Current drawdown | -52.4% | -63% |
| Annualized volatility | 76% | 60.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.9% | -6.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FN or WRD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 46 against WRD's 36. The edge comes from value and quality. WRD 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 FN or WRD the better buy right now?
FN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 FN over WRD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FN leads Value by 24 points; FN leads Quality by 13 points; FN leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FN or WRD?
Analyst price targets imply +102.4% upside for FN and +165.8% for WRD, so the Street currently favors WRD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FN. 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, FN or WRD?
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, FN or WRD?
WRD 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, FN or WRD?
WRD on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, FN or WRD?
FN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FN on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 FN more profitable than WRD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12% vs 32.8%; operating margin 10% vs -214.7%; ttm roe 21% vs -23.9%. FN leads on two measures and WRD 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 FN's lead over WRD getting stronger or weaker?
FN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 10 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when FN moved ahead of WRD.
What would change the FN vs WRD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WRD closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to FN's edge; WRD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FN starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 11 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate FN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FN and WRD?
FN: 0 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral. WRD: 1 bullish / 5 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 FN is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On WRD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FN and WRD 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.