GLW vs STX Stock Comparison
GLW currently leads STX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 37 vs 21. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between GLW and STX?
GLW leads the current stock comparison as Corning Inc, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corning Inc vs Seagate Technology Holdings plc
GLW leads
GLW leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GLW, and its lead is widening.
Corning Inc
Seagate Technology Holdings plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GLW over STX, 37 versus 21 as of Oct 21, 2026. GLW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. GLW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GLW today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. GLW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 16 points over 30 sessions. GLW leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Corning Inc and Seagate Technology Holdings plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare GLW and STX 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.
- Quality51 vs 27GLW +24
- Risk Resilience46 vs 25GLW +21
- Momentum20 vs 8GLW +12
- Value34 vs 25GLW +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GLW. GLW’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
GLW's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GLW and STX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GLW (Corning Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
STX (Seagate Technology Holdings plc): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 64.7% against 58.4%.
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
GLWGLW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STXSTX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GLWGLW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
GLWGLW on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
GLWGLW on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
GLWGLW 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 | GLW | STX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +43% | +38.9% | GLW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +73.1% | +101.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GLW | STX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.94% | 2.05% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.880 | $2.620 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.120 | $2.900 |
| Years increased | 3 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #255 | #328 |
GLW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.94% a year against STX's 2.05%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GLW. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GLW | 37 vs 21 |
| Fundamentals | STXon balance | revenue growth 8.7% vs 16.6%; EPS growth 51.2% vs 72.5%; TTM ROE 15.9% vs 3.5%; gross margin 36.3% vs 45.6%; operating margin 15.5% vs 33.6% — STX takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GLW | Value 34 vs 25 |
| Technicals | STX | Price vs 50-day -12% vs -16.6%; vs 200-day -14.1% vs -0.5% |
| Risk Resilience | GLW | Risk Resilience 46 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | GLW | Target upside 43% vs 38.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GLW and STX 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 GLW.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GLW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GLW +16
- 37 vs 21
- 7 sessions ago
- GLW +16
- 39 vs 23
- 30 sessions ago
- GLW +7
- 47 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- GLW +8
- 51 vs 43
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when GLW moved ahead of STX.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
Only GLW
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.53%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only STX
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.26%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
STX 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 +2.01%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.22%, 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.
- 1STX closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLW's edge.
- 2STX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GLW starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
STX leads on balance| Metric | GLW | STX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.7% | 16.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 51.2% | 72.5% |
| Gross margin | 36.3% | 45.6% |
| Operating margin | 15.5% | 33.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.9% | 3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 1.78 |
Performance
STX leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GLW | STX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11% | -9.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17.2% | -25.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.2% | -24.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -19.7% | 22.1% |
| Year to date | 51.1% | 145.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 52.9% | 200.1% |
Technicals
STX has the stronger structure| Metric | GLW | STX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.3 | 23.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 26 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12% | -16.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.1% | -0.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.4% | 64.7% |
Risk
GLW is the more resilient| Metric | GLW | STX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.94 | 2.38 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.92 | 1.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 3.05 |
| Max drawdown | -51.5% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -48.3% | -38.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 73.8% | 76.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -7.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GLW or STX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GLW is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 37 against STX's 21. 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 GLW or STX the better buy right now?
GLW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 GLW over STX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GLW leads Quality by 24 points; GLW leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; GLW leads Momentum by 12 points. GLW leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by STX simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, GLW or STX?
Analyst price targets imply +43% upside for GLW and +38.9% for STX, so the Street currently favors GLW. 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, GLW or STX?
GLW is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GLW on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, GLW or STX?
STX 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, GLW or STX?
GLW 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, GLW or STX?
GLW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GLW on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 GLW more profitable than STX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.3% vs 45.6%; operating margin 15.5% vs 33.6%; ttm roe 15.9% vs 3.5%. GLW leads on one measure and STX on two measures, 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 GLW's lead over STX getting stronger or weaker?
GLW lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 16 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 2026-07-24, when GLW moved ahead of STX.
What would change the GLW vs STX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STX closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GLW's edge; STX's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GLW starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GLW and STX?
GLW: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. STX: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 GLW is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On STX it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare GLW and STX 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.