LITE vs MBLY Stock Comparison
MBLY currently leads LITE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 31. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between LITE and MBLY?
MBLY leads the current stock comparison as Mobileye Global Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Lumentum Holdings Inc. vs Mobileye Global Inc.
MBLY leads
MBLY leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MBLY, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Lumentum Holdings Inc.
Mobileye Global Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MBLY over LITE, 45 versus 31 as of Oct 21, 2026. MBLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. MBLY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MBLY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 points over 30 sessions. MBLY 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 Lumentum Holdings Inc. and Mobileye Global Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare LITE 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.
- Risk Resilience39 vs 60MBLY +21
- Momentum21 vs 40MBLY +19
- Value24 vs 35MBLY +11
- Quality43 vs 51MBLY +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MBLY. MBLY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MBLY's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — LITE and MBLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MBLY (Mobileye Global Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
LITE (Lumentum Holdings Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 73.4% against 40%.
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
MBLYMBLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MBLYMBLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MBLYMBLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
MBLYMBLY on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MBLYMBLY on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
MBLYMBLY 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 | LITE | MBLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.6% | +62.5% | MBLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +41.5% | +96.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MBLY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MBLY | 31 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | LITEon balance | revenue growth 24.5% vs -9%; EPS growth -49.3% vs 99.4%; TTM ROE -3% vs -40.4%; gross margin 41.7% vs 47.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs -19.2% — LITE takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MBLY | Value 24 vs 35 |
| Technicals | LITE | Price vs 50-day -8.6% vs -12.7%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs -16.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MBLY | Risk Resilience 39 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | MBLY | Target upside 27.6% vs 62.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of LITE and MBLY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 MBLY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MBLY +14
- 31 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- MBLY +10
- 33 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- MBLY +1
- 42 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- MBLY +2
- 50 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when MBLY moved ahead of LITE.
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
Only LITE
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.02%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only MBLY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.46%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
MBLY 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -3.84%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1LITE closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge.
- 2LITE's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MBLY'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
LITE leads on balance| Metric | LITE | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.5% | -9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -49.3% | 99.4% |
| Gross margin | 41.7% | 47.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.4% | -19.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3% | -40.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.36 | 0 |
Performance
LITE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | LITE | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.7% | 4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13% | -4.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.9% | -16.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.7% | -7.2% |
| Year to date | 123.2% | -30.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 405.4% | -49.7% |
Technicals
LITE has the stronger structure| Metric | LITE | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.7 | 47.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.6% | -12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | -16.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 73.4% | 40% |
Risk
MBLY is the more resilient| Metric | LITE | MBLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.01 | 2.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.08 | -0.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.87 | -1.52 |
| Max drawdown | -42.8% | -56.3% |
| Current drawdown | -27.4% | -51.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 99.1% | 56.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.8% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, LITE or MBLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MBLY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against LITE's 31. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 LITE or MBLY the better buy right now?
MBLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MBLY over LITE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MBLY leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; MBLY leads Momentum by 19 points; MBLY leads Value by 11 points. MBLY leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by LITE 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, LITE or MBLY?
Analyst price targets imply +27.6% upside for LITE and +62.5% for MBLY, so the Street currently favors MBLY. 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, LITE or MBLY?
MBLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MBLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, LITE or MBLY?
MBLY 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, LITE or MBLY?
MBLY on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, LITE or MBLY?
MBLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MBLY 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 LITE more profitable than MBLY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 41.7% vs 47.4%; operating margin 17.4% vs -19.2%; ttm roe -3% vs -40.4%. LITE leads on two measures and MBLY 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 MBLY's lead over LITE getting stronger or weaker?
MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 14 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when MBLY moved ahead of LITE.
What would change the LITE vs MBLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: LITE closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge; LITE's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MBLY'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 LITE and MBLY?
LITE: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MBLY: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 LITE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MBLY it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare LITE and MBLY 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.