MU vs ON Stock Comparison
MU currently leads ON in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 57 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while ON has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between MU and ON?
MU leads the current stock comparison as Micron Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Micron Technology, Inc. vs ON Semiconductor Corporation
MU leads
MU leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 23 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MU, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Micron Technology, Inc.
ON Semiconductor Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over ON, 57 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ON holds the stronger momentum 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 Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. MU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Micron Technology, 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 MU 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.
- Quality99 vs 46MU +53
- Momentum15 vs 38ON +23
- Risk Resilience42 vs 35MU +7
- Value57 vs 58Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ON keeps a meaningful momentum 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: 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MU's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MU and ON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ON (ON Semiconductor Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum.
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
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ONON on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
MUMU 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 | MU | ON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +58.5% | +34.2% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +156.1% | +106.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 26 | 10 | 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 | 57 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | MU | revenue growth 30.8% vs 6%; EPS growth 33.2% vs 8.2%; TTM ROE 91.8% vs 8.4%; gross margin 80.7% vs 37.4%; operating margin 75% vs 11.7% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 57 vs 58 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs 1.7%; vs 200-day 24% vs -7.6% |
| Risk Resilience | MU | Risk Resilience 42 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 58.5% vs 34.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MU 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +11
- 57 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +12
- 57 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +23
- 72 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +27
- 75 vs 48
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.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only ON
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.16%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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 +1.96%, 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.
- 1ON closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2ON'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.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate MU's advantage entirely.
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 | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.8% | 6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.2% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 80.7% | 37.4% |
| Operating margin | 75% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 91.8% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.62 |
Performance
MU leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MU | ON |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.3% | 2.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -18.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 99.4% | -13% |
| Year to date | 214% | 39.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 358% | 42.8% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MU | ON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.1 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.1 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | 1.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | -7.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.4% | 48.2% |
Risk
MU is the more resilient| Metric | MU | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.34 | 2.61 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.19 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.8 | 1.16 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -50.3% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -43.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 81.3% | 62.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MU or ON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 57 against ON's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ON is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ON the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MU over ON?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MU leads Quality by 53 points; ON leads Momentum by 23 points; MU leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MU or ON?
Analyst price targets imply +58.5% upside for MU and +34.2% for ON, 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 ON?
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, MU or ON?
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 ON?
ON on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, MU or ON?
MU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MU 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 MU more profitable than ON?
MU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80.7% vs 37.4%; operating margin 75% vs 11.7%; ttm roe 91.8% vs 8.4%.
Is MU's lead over ON getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 23 to 11 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 MU vs ON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ON closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; ON'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; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate MU's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MU and ON?
MU: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ON: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 ON it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MU 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.