MU vs WDC Stock Comparison
MU currently leads WDC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 66 vs 59. The clearest difference is value.
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 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WDC on target upside.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support MU, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Micron Technology, Inc.
Western Digital Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MU over WDC, 66 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. MU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. MU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WDC. 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 19 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Micron Technology, Inc. and Western Digital 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 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.
- Value57 vs 43MU +14
- Risk Resilience40 vs 30MU +10
- Quality99 vs 92MU +7
- Momentum54 vs 56Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor MU. MU’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
MU's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MU and WDC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MU (Micron Technology, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
WDC (Western Digital Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 79.2% against 57%.
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
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 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MUMU on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
WDCWDC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MU, analyst targets favor WDC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MU | WDC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +64.7% | +66.8% | WDC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +155.1% | +105.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 26 | 12 | 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
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 | 66 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | MUon balance | revenue growth 30.8% vs 16.9%; EPS growth 33.2% vs -47.5%; TTM ROE 91.8% vs 113.8%; gross margin 80.7% vs 52.6%; operating margin 75% vs 39.4% — MU takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MU | Value 57 vs 43 |
| Technicals | MU | Price vs 50-day -9.8% vs -13.8%; vs 200-day 32.7% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | MU | Risk Resilience 40 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | WDC | Target upside 64.7% vs 66.8% |
✓ 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 is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 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 · Jul 1 – Oct 30MU lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MU +7
- 66 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- MU +9
- 57 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MU +19
- 64 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MU +12
- 67 vs 55
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MU
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only WDC
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
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 -5.3%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -7.41%, 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.
- 1WDC closes the Value gap — currently 14 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-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 | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.8% | 16.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.2% | -47.5% |
| Gross margin | 80.7% | 52.6% |
| Operating margin | 75% | 39.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 91.8% | 113.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 0.08 |
Performance
MU leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.6% | 4.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.7% | -12.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 12.4% | -25.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 89.6% | -4% |
| Year to date | 244.5% | 130.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 348.9% | 206.3% |
Technicals
MU has the stronger structure| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.8 | 50.8 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.8% | -13.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 32.7% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 57% | 79.2% |
Risk
MU is the more resilient| Metric | MU | WDC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.38 | 3.2 |
| Sharpe ratio | 2.19 | 1.78 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.78 | 2.96 |
| Max drawdown | -39.1% | -55.5% |
| Current drawdown | -19% | -46.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 81.5% | 81.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -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 Oct 31, 2026, scoring 66 against WDC's 59. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 Oct 31, 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 WDC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MU leads Value by 14 points; MU leads Risk Resilience by 10 points; MU leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MU or WDC?
Analyst price targets imply +64.7% upside for MU and +66.8% for WDC, so the Street currently favors WDC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MU. 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, 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 14 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?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 80.7% vs 52.6%; operating margin 75% vs 39.4%; ttm roe 91.8% vs 113.8%. 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
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 14 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 conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate MU's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MU and WDC?
MU: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WDC: 2 bullish / 0 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 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.