MPWR vs ON Stock Comparison
ON currently leads MPWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while MPWR has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between MPWR and ON?
ON leads the current stock comparison as ON Semiconductor Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. vs ON Semiconductor Corporation
ON leads
ON leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MPWR. Wall Street currently favors MPWR on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ON, and the lead recently changed hands.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
ON Semiconductor Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ON over MPWR, 46 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. ON's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while MPWR holds the stronger quality profile. ON also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MPWR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ON today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. ON lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ON now leads by 4.
Compare Monolithic Power Systems, Inc. and ON Semiconductor Corporation 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 ON 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 58ON +33
- Quality77 vs 46MPWR +31
- Momentum17 vs 38ON +21
- Risk Resilience49 vs 35MPWR +14
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ON. ON’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; MPWR 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 +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 +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ON's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MPWR and ON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ON (ON Semiconductor Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
MPWR (Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
ONON on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MPWRMPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ONON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
ONON on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
MPWRMPWR on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
MPWRMPWR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ON, analyst targets favor MPWR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MPWR | ON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.7% | +34.2% | MPWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.9% | +106.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 10 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ON. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ON | 42 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | MPWR | revenue growth 21.9% vs 6%; EPS growth 32.7% vs 8.2%; TTM ROE 21.8% vs 8.4%; gross margin 55.2% vs 37.4%; operating margin 28.7% vs 11.7% |
| Valuation | ON | Value 25 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.4% vs 1.7%; vs 200-day -4.5% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MPWR | Risk Resilience 49 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | MPWR | Target upside 44.7% vs 34.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MPWR and ON 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 ON.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ON lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ON now leads by 4.
- Today
- ON +4
- 42 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ON +4
- 41 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MPWR +12
- 61 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MPWR +11
- 59 vs 48
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when ON moved ahead of MPWR.
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.
MPWR and ON carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.75%, 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.
- 1MPWR closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ON's edge.
- 2MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ON starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
MPWR leads on balance| Metric | MPWR | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 21.9% | 6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 32.7% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 55.2% | 37.4% |
| Operating margin | 28.7% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.8% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.62 |
Performance
ON leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MPWR | ON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | 2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.7% | -18.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.2% | -13% |
| Year to date | 37.8% | 39.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.2% | 42.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MPWR | ON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.1 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.4% | 1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.5% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.8% | 48.2% |
Risk
MPWR is the more resilient| Metric | MPWR | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.51 | 2.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.6 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.93 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -32.4% | -50.3% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -43.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 54.1% | 62.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MPWR or ON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ON is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 46 against MPWR's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. MPWR 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 MPWR or ON the better buy right now?
ON carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ON over MPWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ON leads Value by 33 points; MPWR leads Quality by 31 points; ON leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MPWR or ON?
Analyst price targets imply +44.7% upside for MPWR and +34.2% for ON, so the Street currently favors MPWR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ON. 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, MPWR or ON?
ON is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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 ON?
MPWR 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 ON?
ON on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, MPWR or ON?
MPWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MPWR on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 ON?
MPWR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 55.2% vs 37.4%; operating margin 28.7% vs 11.7%; ttm roe 21.8% vs 8.4%.
Is ON's lead over MPWR getting stronger or weaker?
ON lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ON now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when ON moved ahead of MPWR.
What would change the MPWR vs ON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MPWR closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to ON's edge; MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ON starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ON?
MPWR: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. ON: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MPWR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ON it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MPWR and ON 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.