MU vs AMAT Stock Comparison
Micron Technology, Inc. vs Applied Materials, Inc.
MU leads
MU leads by 26 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MU, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Applied Materials, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over AMAT, 71 versus 45 as of Sep 2, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while AMAT holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MU also shows the stronger 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: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Micron Technology, Inc. and Applied Materials, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%80 vs 16MU +64
- Value30%53 vs 28MU +25
- Quality30%99 vs 87MU +12
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 45AMAT +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; AMAT keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
MU's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MU and AMAT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AMAT (Applied Materials, 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 at 30% each.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
MUMU on the Momentum factor, by 64 points.
Lower downside
AMATAMAT on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | MU | AMAT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +42.7% | +39.3% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +128.5% | +69% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 23 | 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 | 71 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | MU | revenue growth 73.7% vs 15.2%; EPS growth 104.4% vs -9.3%; ROE 70.6% vs 39.8%; gross margin 72.6% vs 49%; operating margin 65.8% vs 29.5% |
| Valuation | MU | Value 53 vs 28 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -20.2%; vs 200-day 61.9% vs 15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | AMAT | Risk Resilience 39 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 42.7% vs 39.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MU and AMAT 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 26 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's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 · Apr 20 – Sep 1MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 26 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +26
- 71 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +20
- 67 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +10
- 63 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +5
- 70 vs 65
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when MU moved ahead of AMAT.
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.
4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (60.72%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (36.05%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.72%)
AMAT 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 +1.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.08%, 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.
- 1AMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2AMAT's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MU leads on balance| Metric | MU | AMAT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 73.7% | 15.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 104.4% | -9.3% |
| Gross margin | 72.6% | 49% |
| Operating margin | 65.8% | 29.5% |
| Return on equity | 70.6% | 39.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0.3 |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MU | AMAT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 30.7 |
| ADX (14) | 9.4 | 16.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -20.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 61.9% | 15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.3% | 48.6% |
Risk
AMAT is the more resilient| Metric | MU | AMAT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.39 | 2.76 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.9 | 1.96 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.97 | 3.09 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -39.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21% | -36.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 81.5% | 59.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MU or AMAT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 71 against AMAT's 45. The edge comes from momentum and value. AMAT 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 MU or AMAT the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 AMAT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MU leads Momentum by 64 points; MU leads Value by 25 points; MU leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MU or AMAT?
Analyst price targets imply +42.7% upside for MU and +39.3% for AMAT, 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, MU or AMAT?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, MU or AMAT?
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, MU or AMAT?
MU on the Momentum factor, by 64 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, MU or AMAT?
AMAT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMAT on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 MU more profitable than AMAT?
MU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.6% vs 49%; operating margin 65.8% vs 29.5%; roe 70.6% vs 39.8%.
Is MU's lead over AMAT getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 26 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when MU moved ahead of AMAT.
What would change the MU vs AMAT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMAT closes the Momentum gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; AMAT's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MU and AMAT?
MU: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. AMAT: 1 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 MU is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On AMAT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MU and AMAT 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.