IBN vs XLK Stock Comparison
Compare IBN and XLK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between IBN and XLK?
IBN leads the current stock comparison as ICICI Bank Limited, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ICICI Bank Limited vs State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
IBN leads
IBN leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from XLK.
Fragile: 0 of 4 evidence groups support IBN, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
ICICI Bank Limited
State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IBN over XLK, 57 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. IBN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while XLK holds the stronger risk resilience profile. IBN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IBN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. IBN lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBN now leads by 1.
Compare ICICI Bank Limited and State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF 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 IBN 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.
- Momentum25%72 vs 57IBN +15
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 61XLK +9
- Quality30%67 vs 74XLK +7
- Value30%36 vs 36Even
0 of 4 evidence groups favor IBN. IBN’s edge is concentrated in momentum; XLK keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
IBN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IBN and XLK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IBN (ICICI Bank Limited): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
XLK (State Street Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
IBNIBN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
IBNIBN on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
XLKXLK on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
0 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IBN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | Even | Value 36 vs 36 |
| Technicals | XLK | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 4.9% vs 16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | XLK | Risk Resilience 52 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 IBN 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 IBN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5IBN lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBN now leads by 1.
- Today
- IBN +1
- 57 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- XLK +1
- 56 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- XLK +7
- 54 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- IBN +11
- 59 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when XLK moved ahead of IBN.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.72%, AIQ 0 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 Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBN's edge.
- 2XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3IBN'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 | IBN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -27.4% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 68.5% | — |
| Operating margin | 26.5% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.59 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IBN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.8% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4% | 36.4% |
| Year to date | 1.7% | 30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.4% | 43.3% |
Technicals
XLK has the stronger structure| Metric | IBN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 44.9 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 11.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.9% | 16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 20.9% |
Risk
XLK is the more resilient| Metric | IBN | XLK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.55 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.31 | 1.34 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.48 | 2.06 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -8% | -5.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.6% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, IBN or XLK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IBN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 57 against XLK's 56. The edge comes from momentum. XLK is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 IBN or XLK the better buy right now?
IBN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor IBN over XLK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. IBN leads Momentum by 15 points; XLK leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; XLK leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which is better value, IBN or XLK?
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, IBN 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, IBN or XLK?
IBN on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. 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, IBN or XLK?
XLK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLK on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is IBN more profitable than XLK?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IBN's lead over XLK getting stronger or weaker?
IBN lead: Reversed — XLK led by 7 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; IBN now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when XLK moved ahead of IBN.
What would change the IBN vs XLK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: XLK closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to IBN's edge; XLK generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; IBN'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 IBN and XLK?
IBN: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 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 IBN 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.