IPGP vs MBLY Stock Comparison
IPG Photonics Corporation vs Mobileye Global Inc.
IPGP and MBLY are effectively level
IPGP and MBLY are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
IPG Photonics Corporation
Mobileye Global Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate IPGP and MBLY as of Sep 5, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare IPG Photonics Corporation and Mobileye Global Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare IPGP and MBLY 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%41 vs 35IPGP +6
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 64MBLY +4
- Quality30%48 vs 51Even
- Momentum25%31 vs 31Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — IPGP and MBLY both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
IPGPIPGP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IPGPIPGP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MBLYMBLY on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
IPGPIPGP 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 | IPGP | MBLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.8% | +31.7% | IPGP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.3% | +97.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 43 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | IPGPon balance | revenue growth 4.9% vs -9%; EPS growth 200% vs 99.4%; TTM ROE 1.3% vs -40.4%; gross margin 38.4% vs 47.4% — IPGP takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IPGP | Value 41 vs 35 |
| Technicals | MBLY | Price vs 50-day -14.6% vs -2.5%; vs 200-day -24.6% vs -10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MBLY | Risk Resilience 60 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | IPGP | Target upside 62.8% vs 31.7% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4MBLY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 43 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- MBLY +2
- 43 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MBLY +4
- 44 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- IPGP +4
- 53 vs 49
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when MBLY moved ahead of IPGP.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.96%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.85%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.51%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.48%)
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 +2.88%, AIQ 0 points).
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
IPGP leads on balance| Metric | IPGP | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.9% | -9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 200% | 99.4% |
| Gross margin | 38.4% | 47.4% |
| Operating margin | 0.7% | -19.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.3% | -40.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | IPGP | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1% | -3.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.8% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -37.6% | -21.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -39.7% | 2.5% |
| Year to date | 6.8% | -20.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -4.6% | -39.4% |
Technicals
MBLY has the stronger structure| Metric | IPGP | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.2 | 37.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.6 | 12.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -14.6% | -2.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.6% | -10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55% | 35.3% |
Risk
MBLY is the more resilient| Metric | IPGP | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.08 | 2.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.22 | -0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.3 | -1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -54% | -57.8% |
| Current drawdown | -50.3% | -46.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 72% | 57.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, IPGP or MBLY?
Analyst price targets imply +62.8% upside for IPGP and +31.7% for MBLY, so the Street currently favors IPGP. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, IPGP or MBLY?
IPGP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IPGP 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, IPGP or MBLY?
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, IPGP or MBLY?
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, IPGP or MBLY?
MBLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MBLY on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 IPGP more profitable than MBLY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.4% vs 47.4%; operating margin 0.7% vs -19.2%; ttm roe 1.3% vs -40.4%. 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.
What do the current signals say about IPGP and MBLY?
IPGP: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MBLY: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 IPGP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MBLY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare IPGP and MBLY with others
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.