NVTS vs RMBS Stock Comparison
Navitas Semiconductor Corp vs Rambus Inc.
RMBS leads
RMBS leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support RMBS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Navitas Semiconductor Corp
Rambus Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RMBS over NVTS, 48 versus 31 as of Sep 5, 2026. RMBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. RMBS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RMBS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Navitas Semiconductor Corp and Rambus Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare NVTS and RMBS 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.
- Quality30%30 vs 77RMBS +47
- Value30%34 vs 40RMBS +6
- Risk Resilience15%40 vs 42Even
- Momentum25%25 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor RMBS. RMBS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
RMBS's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVTS and RMBS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RMBS (Rambus Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
NVTS (Navitas Semiconductor Corp): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 69% against 49.2%.
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
RMBSRMBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
RMBSRMBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMBSRMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
RMBSRMBS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
RMBSRMBS 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 | NVTS | RMBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.1% | +89.3% | RMBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.3% | +16.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RMBS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | RMBS | 31 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | RMBSon balance | revenue growth 22.5% vs 15.1%; EPS growth -5.3% vs 14.5%; TTM ROE -61.5% vs 17.4%; gross margin -1.7% vs 78.3%; operating margin -270.2% vs 35.5% — RMBS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMBS | Value 34 vs 40 |
| Technicals | NVTS | Price vs 50-day -8.6% vs -13.8%; vs 200-day -8.6% vs -20.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | RMBS | Target upside 36.1% vs 89.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NVTS and RMBS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 RMBS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RMBS +17
- 31 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- RMBS +14
- 33 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- RMBS +12
- 41 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- RMBS +15
- 34 vs 49
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 / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.05%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.94%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
RMBS 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 +6.31%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.33%, 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.
- 1NVTS closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge.
- 2NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3RMBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
RMBS leads on balance| Metric | NVTS | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 22.5% | 15.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.3% | 14.5% |
| Gross margin | -1.7% | 78.3% |
| Operating margin | -270.2% | 35.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -61.5% | 17.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.01 |
Performance
NVTS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NVTS | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.7% | -0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15% | -15.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -53% | -41.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 43.9% | -3% |
| Year to date | 65.3% | -7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 105.9% | 16% |
Technicals
NVTS has the stronger structure| Metric | NVTS | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.1 | 25.2 |
| ADX (14) | 14.2 | 30.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.6% | -13.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.6% | -20.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 69% | 49.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | NVTS | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 4.61 | 3.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.18 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.4 | 0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -69.4% | -51.5% |
| Current drawdown | -62.9% | -49.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 126.8% | 79.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -9.8% | -7.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NVTS or RMBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RMBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 48 against NVTS's 31. The edge comes from quality and value. 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 NVTS or RMBS the better buy right now?
RMBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor RMBS over NVTS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. RMBS leads Quality by 47 points; RMBS leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NVTS or RMBS?
Analyst price targets imply +36.1% upside for NVTS and +89.3% for RMBS, so the Street currently favors RMBS. 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, NVTS or RMBS?
RMBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, NVTS or RMBS?
RMBS 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, NVTS or RMBS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, NVTS or RMBS?
RMBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RMBS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is NVTS more profitable than RMBS?
RMBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin -1.7% vs 78.3%; operating margin -270.2% vs 35.5%; ttm roe -61.5% vs 17.4%.
Is RMBS's lead over NVTS getting stronger or weaker?
RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NVTS vs RMBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVTS closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge; NVTS's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; RMBS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 NVTS and RMBS?
NVTS: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. RMBS: 1 bullish / 3 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 NVTS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RMBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NVTS and RMBS 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.