HIMX vs IPGP Stock Comparison
Compare HIMX and IPGP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between HIMX and IPGP?
IPGP leads the current stock comparison as IPG Photonics Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Himax Technologies, Inc. vs IPG Photonics Corporation
IPGP leads
IPGP leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors HIMX on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support IPGP, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Himax Technologies, Inc.
IPG Photonics Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IPGP over HIMX, 49 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. IPGP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. IPGP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors HIMX. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IPGP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. IPGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Himax Technologies, Inc. and IPG Photonics Corporation 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 HIMX and IPGP 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 Resilience31 vs 60IPGP +29
- Quality38 vs 48IPGP +10
- Momentum50 vs 54IPGP +4
- Value42 vs 41Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor IPGP. IPGP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
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 -12
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
IPGP's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — HIMX and IPGP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IPGP (IPG Photonics Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
HIMX (Himax Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals, 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
IPGPIPGP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
IPGPIPGP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
IPGPIPGP on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
IPGPIPGP on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 IPGP, analyst targets favor HIMX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | HIMX | IPGP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +191.9% | +58.8% | HIMX has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +32.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor IPGP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IPGP | 41 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 14.2% vs 4.9%; EPS growth 139.1% vs 200%; TTM ROE 3.9% vs 1.3%; gross margin 31.1% vs 38.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 41 |
| Technicals | HIMX | Price vs 50-day 6.8% vs -9.9%; vs 200-day 16% vs -22.8% |
| Risk Resilience | IPGP | Risk Resilience 31 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | HIMX | Target upside 191.9% vs 58.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of HIMX and IPGP 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 moderate at 8 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 IPGP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10IPGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IPGP +8
- 41 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- IPGP +6
- 37 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- IPGP +2
- 42 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- IPGP +5
- 36 vs 41
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when IPGP moved ahead of HIMX.
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 / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (16.16%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.67%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (14.28%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.06%)
IPGP 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.89%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.12%, 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to IPGP's edge.
- 2HIMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3IPGP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
Split| Metric | HIMX | IPGP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.2% | 4.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 139.1% | 200% |
| Gross margin | 31.1% | 38.4% |
| Operating margin | 5% | 0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3.9% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.01 |
Performance
HIMX leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | HIMX | IPGP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.7% | -10.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.1% | -24.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 50.6% | -35% |
| Year to date | 68.3% | 9.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 63.5% | -5.5% |
Technicals
HIMX has the stronger structure| Metric | HIMX | IPGP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.9 | 60.1 |
| ADX (14) | 10.9 | 18.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.8% | -9.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16% | -22.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 50% |
Risk
IPGP is the more resilient| Metric | HIMX | IPGP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.75 | 2.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.97 | 0.24 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.64 | 0.32 |
| Max drawdown | -51.9% | -54% |
| Current drawdown | -43% | -49.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 77.1% | 72% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -6.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, HIMX or IPGP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IPGP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against HIMX's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 HIMX or IPGP the better buy right now?
IPGP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IPGP over HIMX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IPGP leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; IPGP leads Quality by 10 points; IPGP leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, HIMX or IPGP?
Analyst price targets imply +191.9% upside for HIMX and +58.8% for IPGP, so the Street currently favors HIMX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors IPGP. 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, HIMX or IPGP?
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, HIMX or IPGP?
IPGP 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, HIMX or IPGP?
IPGP on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, HIMX or IPGP?
IPGP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IPGP on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 HIMX more profitable than IPGP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 31.1% vs 38.4%; operating margin 5% vs 0.7%; ttm roe 3.9% vs 1.3%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 IPGP's lead over HIMX getting stronger or weaker?
IPGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when IPGP moved ahead of HIMX.
What would change the HIMX vs IPGP 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 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to IPGP's edge; HIMX's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; IPGP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 HIMX and IPGP?
HIMX: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. IPGP: 1 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 HIMX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IPGP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare HIMX and IPGP 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.