MBLY vs MTSI Stock Comparison
MBLY currently leads MTSI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 39. The clearest difference is momentum, while MTSI has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MBLY and MTSI?
MBLY leads the current stock comparison as Mobileye Global Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mobileye Global Inc. vs MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.
MBLY leads
MBLY leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from MTSI.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MBLY, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Mobileye Global Inc.
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MBLY over MTSI, 45 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 2026. MBLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while MTSI holds the stronger quality profile. 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 Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. MBLY lead: Reversed — MTSI led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MBLY now leads by 6.
Compare Mobileye Global Inc. and MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, 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 MBLY and MTSI 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.
- Momentum40 vs 20MBLY +20
- Risk Resilience60 vs 41MBLY +19
- Quality51 vs 69MTSI +18
- Value35 vs 25MBLY +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MBLY. MBLY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; MTSI keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MBLY's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MBLY and MTSI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MBLY (Mobileye Global Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
MTSI (MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 66.9% 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
MTSIMTSI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MBLYMBLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
MBLYMBLY on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
MBLYMBLY on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 | MBLY | MTSI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.5% | +48.8% | MBLY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +96.4% | +43.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 7 | 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 | 45 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | MTSI | revenue growth -9% vs 18.4%; EPS growth 99.4% vs 112.9%; TTM ROE -40.4% vs 17.1%; gross margin 47.4% vs 56.6%; operating margin -19.2% vs 18.1% |
| Valuation | MBLY | Value 35 vs 25 |
| Technicals | MTSI | Price vs 50-day -12.7% vs -3.8%; vs 200-day -16.3% vs -6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MBLY | Risk Resilience 60 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | MBLY | Target upside 62.5% vs 48.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MBLY and MTSI 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 6 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Reversed — MTSI led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MBLY now leads by 6.
- Today
- MBLY +6
- 45 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- MBLY +2
- 43 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- MTSI +9
- 43 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MTSI +6
- 52 vs 58
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when MBLY moved ahead of MTSI.
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 / 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MTSI
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.05%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, 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.
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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.85%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1MTSI closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge.
- 2MTSI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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
MTSI leads on balance| Metric | MBLY | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9% | 18.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 99.4% | 112.9% |
| Gross margin | 47.4% | 56.6% |
| Operating margin | -19.2% | 18.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -40.4% | 17.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.24 |
Performance
MTSI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MBLY | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4% | -14.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.9% | -6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.9% | -7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.2% | -5.3% |
| Year to date | -30.1% | 53.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -49.7% | 90.6% |
Technicals
MTSI has the stronger structure| Metric | MBLY | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 44 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 18 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.7% | -3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.3% | -6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40% | 66.9% |
Risk
MBLY is the more resilient| Metric | MBLY | MTSI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.12 | 2.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.96 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.52 | 1.93 |
| Max drawdown | -56.3% | -44.2% |
| Current drawdown | -51.4% | -35.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.1% | 63.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -6.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MBLY or MTSI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MBLY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 45 against MTSI's 39. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. MTSI 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 MBLY or MTSI the better buy right now?
MBLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MBLY over MTSI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MBLY leads Momentum by 20 points; MBLY leads Risk Resilience by 19 points; MTSI leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MBLY or MTSI?
Analyst price targets imply +62.5% upside for MBLY and +48.8% for MTSI, 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, MBLY or MTSI?
MBLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MBLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, MBLY or MTSI?
MTSI 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, MBLY or MTSI?
MBLY on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, MBLY or MTSI?
MBLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MBLY on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 MBLY more profitable than MTSI?
MTSI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.4% vs 56.6%; operating margin -19.2% vs 18.1%; ttm roe -40.4% vs 17.1%.
Is MBLY's lead over MTSI getting stronger or weaker?
MBLY lead: Reversed — MTSI led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MBLY now leads by 6. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when MBLY moved ahead of MTSI.
What would change the MBLY vs MTSI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MTSI closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge; MTSI's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 MBLY and MTSI?
MBLY: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. MTSI: 1 bullish / 1 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 MBLY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MTSI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MBLY and MTSI 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.