MU vs TXN Stock Comparison
Compare MU vs TXN on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between MU and TXN?
MU and TXN are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Micron Technology, Inc. vs Texas Instruments Incorporated
MU and TXN are effectively level
MU and TXN are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate MU and TXN as of Oct 21, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Micron Technology, Inc. and Texas Instruments Incorporated 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 TXN 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.
- Momentum15 vs 54TXN +39
- Value57 vs 35MU +22
- Risk Resilience42 vs 62TXN +20
- Quality99 vs 80MU +19
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 +2, 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.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MU and TXN both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
TXNTXN on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
TXNTXN on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 | TXN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +58.5% | +16% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +156.1% | +54.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 26 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 57 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | MU | revenue growth 30.8% vs 13.2%; EPS growth 33.2% vs 25.9%; TTM ROE 91.8% vs 35.8%; gross margin 80.7% vs 58.3%; operating margin 75% vs 37.3% |
| Valuation | MU | Value 57 vs 35 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs 4.6%; vs 200-day 24% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TXN | Risk Resilience 42 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 58.5% vs 16% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 57 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- TXN +2
- 57 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +6
- 72 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +20
- 75 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when TXN moved ahead of MU.
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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.39%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TXN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross 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 +1.96%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.47%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.8% | 13.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.2% | 25.9% |
| Gross margin | 80.7% | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 75% | 37.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 91.8% | 35.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.78 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MU | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.3% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.6% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 99.4% | 19.1% |
| Year to date | 214% | 60.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 358% | 58.3% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MU | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.1 | 47.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.1 | 14.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | 4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 24% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.4% | 26.7% |
Risk
TXN is the more resilient| Metric | MU | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.34 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.19 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.8 | 2.14 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -26.2% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 81.3% | 42.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, MU or TXN?
Analyst price targets imply +58.5% upside for MU and +16% for TXN, so the Street currently favors MU. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, MU or TXN?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 TXN?
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 TXN?
TXN on the Momentum factor, by 39 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 TXN?
TXN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXN on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 TXN?
MU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80.7% vs 58.3%; operating margin 75% vs 37.3%; ttm roe 91.8% vs 35.8%.
What do the current signals say about MU and TXN?
MU: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TXN: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 TXN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MU and TXN 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.