FN vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare FN and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between FN and XLK?
XLK leads the current stock comparison as State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Fabrinet vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLK leads
XLK leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from FN.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLK, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Fabrinet
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLK over FN, 56 versus 45 as of Sep 6, 2026. XLK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while FN holds the stronger value profile. XLK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. XLK lead: Reversed — FN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLK now leads by 11.
Compare Fabrinet 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 FN 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.
- Momentum25%8 vs 57XLK +49
- Value30%59 vs 36FN +23
- Quality30%56 vs 74XLK +18
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 61XLK +7
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLK. XLK’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; FN keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
XLK's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FN and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
FN (Fabrinet): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 87.5% against 20.9%.
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
XLKXLK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
FNFN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
XLKXLK on the Momentum factor, by 49 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK 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 | FN | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +83.4% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +13.1% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | — | 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 XLK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLK | 45 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | FN | Value 59 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day -15.6% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day -24% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 54 vs 61 |
| 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 FN 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 11 points.
- 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 XLK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5XLK lead: Reversed — FN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLK now leads by 11.
- Today
- XLK +11
- 45 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +16
- 41 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- FN +1
- 62 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- XLK +5
- 43 vs 48
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when XLK 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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.08%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.88%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
XLK 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 +3.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.7%, 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge.
- 2FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | FN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 11.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 12% | — |
| Operating margin | 10% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0 | — |
Performance
XLK leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | FN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -27.4% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -34.4% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.8% | 36.4% |
| Year to date | -10.4% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.7% | 43.3% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | FN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 18.6 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.9 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.6% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 87.5% | 20.9% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | FN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.93 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.68 | 2.06 |
| Max drawdown | -47.1% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -45.4% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.1% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FN or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 56 against FN's 45. The edge comes from momentum and quality. FN is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 XLK the better buy right now?
XLK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLK over FN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. XLK leads Momentum by 49 points; FN leads Value by 23 points; XLK leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FN or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +83.4% upside for FN 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, FN or XLK?
FN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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 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, FN or XLK?
XLK on the Momentum factor, by 49 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 7 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is FN more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLK's lead over FN getting stronger or weaker?
XLK lead: Reversed — FN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XLK now leads by 11. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when XLK moved ahead of FN.
What would change the FN vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FN closes the Momentum gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLK's edge; FN's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XLK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about FN and XLK?
FN: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. XLK: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 XLK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.