HAFC vs XLK Stock Comparison
Hanmi Financial Corporation vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
HAFC leads
HAFC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support HAFC, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Hanmi Financial Corporation
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HAFC over XLK, 61 versus 56 as of Sep 5, 2026. HAFC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while XLK holds the stronger quality profile. HAFC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor HAFC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Hanmi Financial Corporation and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare HAFC 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.
- Value30%58 vs 36HAFC +22
- Quality30%64 vs 74XLK +10
- Momentum25%60 vs 57Even
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 61Even
2 of 4 evidence groups favor HAFC. HAFC’s edge is concentrated in value; XLK keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +20
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
HAFC's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HAFC and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HAFC (Hanmi Financial Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on quality, technicals.
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
HAFCHAFC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
HAFCHAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
HAFCHAFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | HAFC | XLK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +8.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor HAFC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HAFC | 61 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | HAFC | Value 58 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 0.4% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 10% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 62 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 HAFC 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 HAFC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HAFC +5
- 61 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 56 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- HAFC +3
- 64 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- HAFC +14
- 65 vs 51
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when XLK moved ahead of HAFC.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.54%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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 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 +0.69%, AIQ +5 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.
- 1XLK closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | HAFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -45.6% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.6% | — |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | — |
| Operating margin | 17.3% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | HAFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 24.5% | 36.4% |
| Year to date | 18.6% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.9% | 43.3% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | HAFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 14.8 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.4% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.2% | 20.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | HAFC | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.58 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.81 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.03 | 2.06 |
| Max drawdown | -16.2% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.8% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.4% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HAFC or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HAFC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 61 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from value. XLK is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 HAFC or XLK the better buy right now?
HAFC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HAFC over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. HAFC leads Value by 22 points; XLK leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HAFC or XLK?
Analyst price targets imply +5% upside for HAFC 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, HAFC or XLK?
HAFC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HAFC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, HAFC 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, HAFC or XLK?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, HAFC or XLK?
HAFC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HAFC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is HAFC more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is HAFC's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
HAFC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when XLK moved ahead of HAFC.
What would change the HAFC vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to HAFC's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; HAFC's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 HAFC and XLK?
HAFC: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 HAFC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.