MTSI vs ONTO Stock Comparison
MTSI currently leads ONTO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 39 vs 31. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between MTSI and ONTO?
MTSI leads the current stock comparison as MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. vs Onto Innovation Inc.
MTSI leads
MTSI leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ONTO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MTSI, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.
Onto Innovation Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTSI over ONTO, 39 versus 31 as of Oct 21, 2026. MTSI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. MTSI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ONTO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTSI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MTSI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. and Onto Innovation 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 MTSI and ONTO 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.
- Quality69 vs 48MTSI +21
- Momentum20 vs 8MTSI +12
- Value25 vs 28Even
- Risk Resilience41 vs 40Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MTSI. MTSI’s edge is concentrated in quality 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
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
MTSI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MTSI and ONTO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTSI (MACOM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ONTO (Onto Innovation Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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
MTSIMTSI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MTSIMTSI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
MTSIMTSI on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
ONTOONTO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ONTOONTO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MTSI, analyst targets favor ONTO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MTSI | ONTO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.8% | +71.2% | ONTO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.1% | +31.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 9 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTSI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MTSI | 39 vs 31 |
| Fundamentals | MTSI | revenue growth 18.4% vs 17.5%; EPS growth 112.9% vs 79.4%; TTM ROE 17.1% vs 6.5%; gross margin 56.6% vs 50.4%; operating margin 18.1% vs 12.5% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 25 vs 28 |
| Technicals | MTSI | Price vs 50-day -3.8% vs -21.4%; vs 200-day -6.4% vs -14.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 41 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | ONTO | Target upside 48.8% vs 71.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MTSI and ONTO 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MTSI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MTSI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MTSI +8
- 39 vs 31
- 7 sessions ago
- MTSI +10
- 41 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- MTSI +1
- 52 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- MTSI +6
- 58 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when MTSI moved ahead of ONTO.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ONTO
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MTSI 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.85%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.15%, 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.
- 1ONTO closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTSI's edge.
- 2ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MTSI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 | MTSI | ONTO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.4% | 17.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 112.9% | 79.4% |
| Gross margin | 56.6% | 50.4% |
| Operating margin | 18.1% | 12.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.1% | 6.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.24 | 0.77 |
Performance
MTSI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MTSI | ONTO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.8% | -16.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6% | -22.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7% | -23.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.3% | -23.5% |
| Year to date | 53.5% | 39.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 90.6% | 66.1% |
Technicals
MTSI has the stronger structure| Metric | MTSI | ONTO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 21 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 22.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.8% | -21.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.4% | -14.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 66.9% | 58.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MTSI | ONTO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.24 | 3.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.29 | 0.99 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.93 | 1.65 |
| Max drawdown | -44.2% | -42.3% |
| Current drawdown | -35.8% | -42% |
| Annualized volatility | 63.1% | 71.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -7.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MTSI or ONTO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTSI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 39 against ONTO's 31. The edge comes from quality 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 MTSI or ONTO the better buy right now?
MTSI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MTSI over ONTO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MTSI leads Quality by 21 points; MTSI leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MTSI or ONTO?
Analyst price targets imply +48.8% upside for MTSI and +71.2% for ONTO, so the Street currently favors ONTO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MTSI. 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, MTSI or ONTO?
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, MTSI or ONTO?
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, MTSI or ONTO?
MTSI on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, MTSI or ONTO?
ONTO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ONTO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MTSI more profitable than ONTO?
MTSI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.6% vs 50.4%; operating margin 18.1% vs 12.5%; ttm roe 17.1% vs 6.5%.
Is MTSI's lead over ONTO getting stronger or weaker?
MTSI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 8 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-16, when MTSI moved ahead of ONTO.
What would change the MTSI vs ONTO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONTO closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTSI's edge; ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MTSI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 MTSI and ONTO?
MTSI: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ONTO: 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 MTSI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ONTO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MTSI and ONTO 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.