FORM vs HIMX Stock Comparison
FormFactor, Inc. vs Himax Technologies, Inc.
FORM leads
FORM leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HIMX on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FORM, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
FormFactor, Inc.
Himax Technologies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FORM over HIMX, 40 versus 36 as of Sep 5, 2026. FORM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while HIMX holds the stronger momentum profile. FORM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HIMX. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FORM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FORM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare FormFactor, Inc. and Himax Technologies, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FORM and HIMX 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.
- Risk Resilience15%54 vs 28FORM +26
- Quality30%61 vs 38FORM +23
- Momentum25%17 vs 32HIMX +15
- Value30%31 vs 42HIMX +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FORM. FORM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; HIMX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FORM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FORM and HIMX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FORM (FormFactor, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
HIMX (Himax Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation.
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
FORMFORM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FORMFORM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HIMXHIMX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
HIMXHIMX on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
FORMFORM on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
HIMXHIMX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FORM, analyst targets favor HIMX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FORM | HIMX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +45.5% | +214.3% | HIMX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FORM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FORM | 40 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | FORM | revenue growth 14.2% vs 14.2%; EPS growth 176.9% vs 139.1%; TTM ROE 11% vs 3.9%; gross margin 45.6% vs 31.1%; operating margin 16.9% vs 5% |
| Valuation | HIMX | Value 31 vs 42 |
| Technicals | HIMX | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day -4.9% vs 15.5% |
| Risk Resilience | FORM | Risk Resilience 54 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | HIMX | Target upside 45.5% vs 214.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FORM and HIMX 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 FORM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FORM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FORM +4
- 40 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- FORM +7
- 44 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- FORM +13
- 56 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FORM +16
- 53 vs 37
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 29 when HIMX moved ahead of FORM.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.97%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
FORM 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 +7.38%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.88%, 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.
- 1HIMX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to FORM's edge.
- 2HIMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FORM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FORM'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
FORM leads on balance| Metric | FORM | HIMX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.2% | 14.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 176.9% | 139.1% |
| Gross margin | 45.6% | 31.1% |
| Operating margin | 16.9% | 5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11% | 3.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.66 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FORM | HIMX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.2% | -3.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.6% | -40.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.6% | 76.6% |
| Year to date | 73.5% | 65.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 240.3% | 67.8% |
Technicals
HIMX has the stronger structure| Metric | FORM | HIMX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.6 | 29 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 13 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.9% | 15.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 74.7% | 45.4% |
Risk
FORM is the more resilient| Metric | FORM | HIMX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.96 | 2.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.81 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.94 | 1.64 |
| Max drawdown | -47.8% | -51.9% |
| Current drawdown | -39.5% | -43.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 85.2% | 77% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FORM or HIMX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FORM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 40 against HIMX's 36. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. HIMX 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 FORM or HIMX the better buy right now?
FORM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FORM over HIMX?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FORM leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; FORM leads Quality by 23 points; HIMX leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FORM or HIMX?
Analyst price targets imply +45.5% upside for FORM and +214.3% for HIMX, so the Street currently favors HIMX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FORM. 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, FORM or HIMX?
HIMX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HIMX 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, FORM or HIMX?
FORM 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, FORM or HIMX?
HIMX on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, FORM or HIMX?
FORM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FORM on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 FORM more profitable than HIMX?
FORM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.6% vs 31.1%; operating margin 16.9% vs 5%; ttm roe 11% vs 3.9%.
Is FORM's lead over HIMX getting stronger or weaker?
FORM lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-29, when HIMX moved ahead of FORM.
What would change the FORM vs HIMX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HIMX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to FORM's edge; HIMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FORM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate FORM's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about FORM and HIMX?
FORM: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HIMX: 2 bullish / 1 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 FORM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HIMX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FORM and HIMX with others
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.