MBLY vs NVTS Stock Comparison
Mobileye Global Inc. vs Navitas Semiconductor Corp
MBLY leads
MBLY leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NVTS on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MBLY, and its lead is widening.
Mobileye Global Inc.
Navitas Semiconductor Corp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MBLY over NVTS, 43 versus 31 as of Sep 5, 2026. MBLY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. MBLY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NVTS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MBLY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mobileye Global Inc. and Navitas Semiconductor Corp across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare MBLY and NVTS 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 Resilience15%65 vs 40MBLY +25
- Quality30%51 vs 30MBLY +21
- Momentum25%30 vs 25MBLY +5
- Value30%35 vs 34Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MBLY. MBLY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MBLY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MBLY and NVTS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MBLY (Mobileye Global Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
NVTS (Navitas Semiconductor Corp): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 69% against 34.3%.
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
MBLYMBLY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MBLYMBLY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MBLYMBLY on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MBLYMBLY on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
NVTSNVTS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MBLY, analyst targets favor NVTS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MBLY | NVTS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +31.7% | +36.1% | NVTS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +97.6% | +52.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 4 | 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
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 | 43 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | MBLYon balance | revenue growth -9% vs 22.5%; EPS growth 99.4% vs -5.3%; TTM ROE -40.4% vs -61.5%; gross margin 47.4% vs -1.7%; operating margin -19.2% vs -270.2% — MBLY takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 35 vs 34 |
| Technicals | MBLY | Price vs 50-day -2.7% vs -8.6%; vs 200-day -7.4% vs -8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MBLY | Risk Resilience 65 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | NVTS | Target upside 31.7% vs 36.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MBLY and NVTS 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 · Apr 23 – Sep 4MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MBLY +12
- 43 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- MBLY +12
- 45 vs 33
- 30 sessions ago
- MBLY +7
- 48 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- MBLY +15
- 49 vs 34
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.15%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.34%)
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
NVTS 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 +2.88%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +6.31%, 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.
- 1NVTS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge.
- 2NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MBLY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MBLY leads on balance| Metric | MBLY | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9% | 22.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 99.4% | -5.3% |
| Gross margin | 47.4% | -1.7% |
| Operating margin | -19.2% | -270.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -40.4% | -61.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.01 |
Performance
NVTS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MBLY | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.2% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.9% | -15% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.6% | -53% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.9% | 43.9% |
| Year to date | -18% | 65.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -37.5% | 105.9% |
Technicals
MBLY has the stronger structure| Metric | MBLY | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.2 | 14.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.7% | -8.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.4% | -8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.3% | 69% |
Risk
MBLY is the more resilient| Metric | MBLY | NVTS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.2 | 4.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.76 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | 2.4 |
| Max drawdown | -57.8% | -69.4% |
| Current drawdown | -44.9% | -62.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.9% | 126.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -9.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MBLY or NVTS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MBLY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 43 against NVTS's 31. 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 MBLY or NVTS the better buy right now?
MBLY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 NVTS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MBLY leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; MBLY leads Quality by 21 points; MBLY leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MBLY or NVTS?
Analyst price targets imply +31.7% upside for MBLY and +36.1% for NVTS, so the Street currently favors NVTS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MBLY. 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, MBLY or NVTS?
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, MBLY or NVTS?
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, MBLY or NVTS?
MBLY on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, MBLY or NVTS?
MBLY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MBLY on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 MBLY more profitable than NVTS?
MBLY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.4% vs -1.7%; operating margin -19.2% vs -270.2%; ttm roe -40.4% vs -61.5%.
Is MBLY's lead over NVTS getting stronger or weaker?
MBLY lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MBLY vs NVTS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVTS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to MBLY's edge; NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MBLY starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 MBLY and NVTS?
MBLY: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. NVTS: 2 bullish / 1 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 MBLY is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NVTS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MBLY and NVTS 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.