MPWR vs MU Stock Comparison
MU currently leads MPWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while MPWR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between MPWR and MU?
MU leads the current stock comparison as Micron Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. vs Micron Technology, Inc.
MU leads
MU leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MU, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Micron Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over MPWR, 57 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while MPWR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MU also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MU today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and Micron Technology, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare MPWR and MU 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.
- Value25 vs 57MU +32
- Quality77 vs 99MU +22
- Risk Resilience49 vs 42MPWR +7
- Momentum17 vs 15Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; MPWR keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +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: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MU's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MPWR and MU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
MPWR (Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
MUMU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MPWRMPWR on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MUMU 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 | MPWR | MU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.7% | +58.5% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.9% | +156.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 26 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MU | 42 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MU | revenue growth 21.9% vs 30.8%; EPS growth 32.7% vs 33.2%; TTM ROE 21.8% vs 91.8%; gross margin 55.2% vs 80.7%; operating margin 28.7% vs 75% |
| Valuation | MU | Value 25 vs 57 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -1.4% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -4.5% vs 24% |
| Risk Resilience | MPWR | Risk Resilience 49 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 44.7% vs 58.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MPWR and MU and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 MU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +15
- 42 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +16
- 41 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +11
- 61 vs 72
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +16
- 59 vs 75
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
Only MPWR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.40%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MU
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (35.99%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MU 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 +2.77%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.96%, 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.
- 1MPWR closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3MU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
MU leads on balance| Metric | MPWR | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 21.9% | 30.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 32.7% | 33.2% |
| Gross margin | 55.2% | 80.7% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 75% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.8% | 91.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.03 |
Performance
MU leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MPWR | MU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | -18.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -6.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.2% | 99.4% |
| Year to date | 37.8% | 214% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.2% | 358% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MPWR | MU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 29.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 25.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.4% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.5% | 24% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.8% | 43.4% |
Risk
MPWR is the more resilient| Metric | MPWR | MU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.51 | 3.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.6 | 2.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.93 | 3.8 |
| Max drawdown | -32.4% | -39.1% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -26.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.1% | 81.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MPWR or MU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against MPWR's 42. The edge comes from value and quality. MPWR 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 MPWR or MU the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MU over MPWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MU leads Value by 32 points; MU leads Quality by 22 points; MPWR leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MPWR or MU?
Analyst price targets imply +44.7% upside for MPWR and +58.5% for MU, so the Street currently favors MU. 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, MPWR or MU?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, MPWR or MU?
MU 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, MPWR or MU?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, MPWR or MU?
MPWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MPWR on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 MPWR more profitable than MU?
MU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 55.2% vs 80.7%; operating margin 28.7% vs 75%; ttm roe 21.8% vs 91.8%.
Is MU's lead over MPWR getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the MPWR vs MU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MPWR closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; MU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 MPWR and MU?
MPWR: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. MU: 2 bullish / 2 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 MPWR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MPWR and MU 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.