GFS vs KLIC Stock Comparison
Compare GFS and KLIC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between GFS and KLIC?
KLIC leads the current stock comparison as Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. vs Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.
KLIC leads
KLIC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors GFS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KLIC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.
Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KLIC over GFS, 55 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. KLIC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GFS holds the stronger value profile. KLIC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GFS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KLIC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KLIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc. and Kulicke and Soffa Industries, 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 KLIC 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 65KLIC +19
- Momentum37 vs 45KLIC +8
- Value63 vs 57GFS +6
- Risk Resilience48 vs 47Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KLIC. KLIC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GFS keeps a meaningful value edge.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
KLIC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GFS and KLIC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KLIC (Kulicke and Soffa Industries, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GFS (GLOBALFOUNDRIES Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
KLICKLIC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KLICKLIC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GFSGFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
KLICKLIC on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
GFSGFS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GFSGFS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KLIC, analyst targets favor GFS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | GFS | KLIC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +71.5% | -18.7% | GFS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +105.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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 KLIC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KLIC | 49 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | KLIC | revenue growth 9.3% vs 36.2%; EPS growth 57.9% vs 64.2%; TTM ROE 6.1% vs 13.6%; gross margin 27.4% vs 48.2%; operating margin 11.6% vs 13.4% |
| Valuation | GFS | Value 63 vs 57 |
| Technicals | KLIC | Price vs 50-day -12.4% vs -9.2%; vs 200-day -14.1% vs 4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | GFS | Target upside 71.5% vs -18.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GFS and KLIC 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 KLIC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KLIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KLIC +6
- 49 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- KLIC +6
- 45 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- KLIC +7
- 48 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- KLIC +8
- 44 vs 52
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.05%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.24%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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 +3.81%, 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.
- 1GFS closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to KLIC's edge.
- 2GFS's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3KLIC'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
KLIC leads on balance| Metric | GFS | KLIC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.3% | 36.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 57.9% | 64.2% |
| Gross margin | 27.4% | 48.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.6% | 13.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.1% | 13.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | 0.04 |
Performance
KLIC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | GFS | KLIC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.5% | 5.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.6% | -12.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.6% | -18.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.2% | 26.5% |
| Year to date | 31.6% | 82.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 39.6% | 117.5% |
Technicals
KLIC has the stronger structure| Metric | GFS | KLIC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.9 | 44 |
| ADX (14) | 29.4 | 29.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.4% | -9.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.1% | 4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.5% | 51.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | GFS | KLIC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.19 | 2.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.83 | 1.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 2.38 |
| Max drawdown | -51.2% | -41.7% |
| Current drawdown | -48.9% | -38% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.6% | 57% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GFS or KLIC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KLIC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against GFS's 49. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GFS 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 GFS or KLIC the better buy right now?
KLIC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 KLIC over GFS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KLIC leads Quality by 19 points; KLIC leads Momentum by 8 points; GFS leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GFS or KLIC?
Analyst price targets imply +71.5% upside for GFS and -18.7% for KLIC, so the Street currently favors GFS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KLIC. 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, GFS or KLIC?
GFS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GFS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, GFS or KLIC?
KLIC 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 KLIC?
KLIC on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 KLIC?
GFS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GFS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 KLIC?
KLIC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 27.4% vs 48.2%; operating margin 11.6% vs 13.4%; ttm roe 6.1% vs 13.6%.
Is KLIC's lead over GFS getting stronger or weaker?
KLIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 KLIC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GFS closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to KLIC's edge; GFS's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; KLIC'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 KLIC?
GFS: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. KLIC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on GFS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On KLIC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GFS and KLIC 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.