GFS vs INDI Stock Comparison
Compare GFS and INDI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GFS and INDI?
GFS leads the current stock comparison as GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. vs indie Semiconductor, Inc.
GFS leads
GFS leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GFS, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
indie Semiconductor, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GFS over INDI, 49 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. GFS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. GFS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GFS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. GFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. and indie Semiconductor, Inc. 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 GFS and INDI 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.
- Quality46 vs 18GFS +28
- Risk Resilience48 vs 30GFS +18
- Momentum37 vs 25GFS +12
- Value63 vs 62Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GFS. GFS’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
GFS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GFS and INDI both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GFSGFS on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
GFSGFS on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
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 | GFS | INDI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +71.5% | +45.7% | GFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +105.6% | +5.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 49 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | GFSon balance | revenue growth 9.3% vs 15.4%; EPS growth 57.9% vs 22.7%; TTM ROE 6.1% vs -44.8%; gross margin 27.4% vs 21.5%; operating margin 11.6% vs -62.7% — GFS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 63 vs 62 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -12.4% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day -14.1% vs -13% |
| Risk Resilience | GFS | Risk Resilience 48 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | GFS | Target upside 71.5% vs 45.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GFS and INDI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GFS +14
- 49 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- GFS +10
- 45 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- GFS +2
- 48 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- GFS +4
- 44 vs 40
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.20%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.69%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
INDI 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.15%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.21%, 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.
- 1INDI closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to GFS's edge.
- 2INDI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
GFS leads on balance| Metric | GFS | INDI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 15.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.9% | 22.7% |
| Gross margin | 27.4% | 21.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.6% | -62.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.1% | -44.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 1.46 |
Performance
GFS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GFS | INDI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.5% | -7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.6% | -17.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.6% | -16% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.2% | 27.8% |
| Year to date | 31.6% | -6.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.6% | -21.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | GFS | INDI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 29.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.4% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.1% | -13% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.5% | 81.7% |
Risk
GFS is the more resilient| Metric | GFS | INDI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.19 | 2.77 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.83 | 0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -51.2% | -59.3% |
| Current drawdown | -48.9% | -44.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.6% | 86% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -7.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GFS or INDI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GFS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against INDI's 35. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 GFS or INDI the better buy right now?
GFS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GFS over INDI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GFS leads Quality by 28 points; GFS leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; GFS leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GFS or INDI?
Analyst price targets imply +71.5% upside for GFS and +45.7% for INDI, 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, GFS or INDI?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, GFS or INDI?
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, GFS or INDI?
GFS 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, GFS or INDI?
GFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GFS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 GFS more profitable than INDI?
GFS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.4% vs 21.5%; operating margin 11.6% vs -62.7%; ttm roe 6.1% vs -44.8%.
Is GFS's lead over INDI getting stronger or weaker?
GFS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the GFS vs INDI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: INDI closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to GFS's edge; INDI's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GFS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 GFS and INDI?
GFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. INDI: 2 bullish / 2 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 GFS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On INDI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GFS and INDI 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.