MU vs WDC Stock Comparison
Compare MU and WDC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MU and WDC?
MU leads the current stock comparison as Micron Technology, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Micron Technology, Inc. vs Western Digital Corporation
MU leads
MU leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Stable: 6 of 6 evidence groups support MU, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Western Digital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over WDC, 71 versus 56 as of Sep 11, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. MU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. MU leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Micron Technology, Inc. and Western Digital Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare MU and WDC 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.
- Value51 vs 32MU +19
- Momentum79 vs 60MU +19
- Risk Resilience39 vs 29MU +10
- Quality99 vs 90MU +9
6 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -11
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -10
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 WDC 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
MUMU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MUMU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MUMU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
MUMU on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
MUMU on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 | WDC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44% | +25.9% | MU has more room |
| Target dispersion | +104% | +124.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 24 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 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 56 |
| Fundamentals | MUon balance | revenue growth 73.7% vs 12.3%; TTM ROE 70.5% vs 118.6%; gross margin 72.6% vs 48.9%; operating margin 65.7% vs 34.9% — MU takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MU | Value 51 vs 32 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day 4.9% vs -10.2%; vs 200-day 58.1% vs 22% |
| Risk Resilience | MU | Risk Resilience 39 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | MU | Target upside 44% vs 25.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MU and WDC 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 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +15
- 71 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +20
- 71 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +15
- 69 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +14
- 61 vs 47
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when MU moved ahead of WDC.
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 (50.39%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (31.82%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.86%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.22%, AIQ -2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.98%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1WDC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge.
- 2WDC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MU leads on balance| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 73.7% | 12.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 104.4% | -0.3% |
| Gross margin | 72.6% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 65.7% | 34.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 70.5% | 118.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0.12 |
Performance
MU leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.3% | 1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.6% | -5.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 133.4% | 71.5% |
| Year to date | 242.5% | 167.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 643.5% | 410.8% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.5 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 10.3 | 13.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.9% | -10.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 58.1% | 22% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 55.8% | 66.6% |
Risk
MU is the more resilient| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.37 | 3.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.79 | 2.33 |
| Sortino ratio | 4.82 | 3.85 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -41.8% |
| Current drawdown | -19.5% | -38.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 81.7% | 80.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7% | -7.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MU or WDC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MU is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 71 against WDC's 56. The edge comes from value 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 MU or WDC the better buy right now?
MU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 6 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 WDC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MU leads Value by 19 points; MU leads Momentum by 19 points; MU leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. MU leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by WDC simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, MU or WDC?
Analyst price targets imply +44% upside for MU and +25.9% for WDC, 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 WDC?
MU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 WDC?
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 WDC?
MU on the Momentum factor, by 19 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 WDC?
MU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MU on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 WDC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 72.6% vs 48.9%; operating margin 65.7% vs 34.9%; ttm roe 70.5% vs 118.6%. MU leads on two measures and WDC on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is MU's lead over WDC getting stronger or weaker?
MU lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when MU moved ahead of WDC.
What would change the MU vs WDC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WDC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to MU's edge; WDC's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MU's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MU and WDC?
MU: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. WDC: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on MU is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WDC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MU and WDC 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.