ONTO vs RMBS Stock Comparison
RMBS currently leads ONTO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 31. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between ONTO and RMBS?
RMBS leads the current stock comparison as Rambus Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Onto Innovation Inc. vs Rambus Inc.
RMBS leads
RMBS leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RMBS, and its lead is widening.
Onto Innovation Inc.
Rambus Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RMBS over ONTO, 47 versus 31 as of Oct 21, 2026. RMBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. RMBS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor RMBS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Onto Innovation Inc. and Rambus Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ONTO 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.
- Quality48 vs 77RMBS +29
- Momentum8 vs 21RMBS +13
- Value28 vs 40RMBS +12
- Risk Resilience40 vs 42Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RMBS. RMBS’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3, 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.
RMBS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ONTO and RMBS 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
RMBSRMBS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ONTOONTO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMBSRMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
RMBSRMBS on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
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 | ONTO | RMBS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +71.2% | +74.3% | RMBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.6% | +16.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 4 | 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 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 47 |
| Fundamentals | RMBSon balance | revenue growth 17.5% vs 15.1%; EPS growth 79.4% vs 14.5%; TTM ROE 6.5% vs 17.4%; gross margin 50.4% vs 78.3%; operating margin 12.5% vs 35.5% — RMBS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMBS | Value 28 vs 40 |
| Technicals | RMBS | Price vs 50-day -21.4% vs -2.4%; vs 200-day -14.8% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | RMBS | Target upside 71.2% vs 74.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ONTO and RMBS 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 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RMBS +16
- 31 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- RMBS +16
- 31 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- RMBS +10
- 51 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- RMBS +3
- 52 vs 55
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 2 when RMBS moved ahead of ONTO.
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 ONTO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.67%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only RMBS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.83%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ONTO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +1.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.41%, 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.
- 1ONTO closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge.
- 2ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3RMBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
RMBS leads on balance| Metric | ONTO | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.5% | 15.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 79.4% | 14.5% |
| Gross margin | 50.4% | 78.3% |
| Operating margin | 12.5% | 35.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.5% | 17.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 0.01 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ONTO | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.7% | -5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.7% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.5% | -28.6% |
| Year to date | 39.1% | 0.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 66.1% | -5.8% |
Technicals
RMBS has the stronger structure| Metric | ONTO | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21 | 34 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 25.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -21.4% | -2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.8% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.7% | 54.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ONTO | RMBS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.09 | 3.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.65 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -42.3% | -52.9% |
| Current drawdown | -42% | -45.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 71.5% | 78% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.3% | -7.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ONTO or RMBS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RMBS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against ONTO's 31. The edge comes from quality 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 ONTO or RMBS the better buy right now?
RMBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 RMBS over ONTO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RMBS leads Quality by 29 points; RMBS leads Momentum by 13 points; RMBS leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ONTO or RMBS?
Analyst price targets imply +71.2% upside for ONTO and +74.3% 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, ONTO or RMBS?
RMBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, ONTO or RMBS?
ONTO 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, ONTO or RMBS?
RMBS on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, ONTO 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. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ONTO more profitable than RMBS?
RMBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.4% vs 78.3%; operating margin 12.5% vs 35.5%; ttm roe 6.5% vs 17.4%.
Is RMBS's lead over ONTO getting stronger or weaker?
RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-02, when RMBS moved ahead of ONTO.
What would change the ONTO vs RMBS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONTO closes the Quality gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge; ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; RMBS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 ONTO and RMBS?
ONTO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. RMBS: 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 ONTO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On RMBS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ONTO and RMBS 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.