ONTO vs SIMO Stock Comparison
SIMO 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 SIMO?
SIMO leads the current stock comparison as Silicon Motion Technology Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Onto Innovation Inc. vs Silicon Motion Technology Corporation
SIMO leads
SIMO leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ONTO on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support SIMO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Onto Innovation Inc.
Silicon Motion Technology Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SIMO over ONTO, 47 versus 31 as of Oct 21, 2026. SIMO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. SIMO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ONTO. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SIMO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. SIMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 16 points over 30 sessions. SIMO 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 Onto Innovation Inc. and Silicon Motion Technology 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 ONTO and SIMO 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 83SIMO +35
- Value28 vs 38SIMO +10
- Momentum8 vs 15SIMO +7
- Risk Resilience40 vs 45SIMO +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor SIMO. SIMO’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
SIMO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ONTO and SIMO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SIMO (Silicon Motion Technology Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
ONTO (Onto Innovation Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 58.7% against 52.3%.
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
SIMOSIMO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SIMOSIMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SIMOSIMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
SIMOSIMO on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
SIMOSIMO on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ONTOONTO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SIMO, analyst targets favor ONTO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ONTO | SIMO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +71.2% | +30.5% | ONTO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.6% | +75.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 4 | 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 SIMO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SIMO | 31 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | SIMOon balance | revenue growth 17.5% vs 31.8%; EPS growth 79.4% vs 102.5%; TTM ROE 6.5% vs 32%; gross margin 50.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 12.5% vs 16.3% — SIMO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SIMO | Value 28 vs 38 |
| Technicals | SIMO | Price vs 50-day -21.4% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day -14.8% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | SIMO | Risk Resilience 40 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | ONTO | Target upside 71.2% vs 30.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ONTO and SIMO 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)
- 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 SIMO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20SIMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SIMO +16
- 31 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SIMO +16
- 31 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- SIMO +9
- 51 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- SIMO +9
- 52 vs 61
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.
ONTO and SIMO carry the same 5 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce, MACD Bearish Crossover.
SIMO 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 +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 +4.02%, 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 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to SIMO's edge.
- 2ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SIMO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
SIMO leads on balance| Metric | ONTO | SIMO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.5% | 31.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 79.4% | 102.5% |
| Gross margin | 50.4% | 48.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.5% | 16.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.5% | 32% |
| Debt to equity | 0.77 | 0.06 |
Performance
SIMO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ONTO | SIMO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16.7% | -13.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.6% | -24.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.7% | -21.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.5% | 50% |
| Year to date | 39.1% | 130.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 66.1% | 133.1% |
Technicals
SIMO has the stronger structure| Metric | ONTO | SIMO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 21 | 21.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | -21.4% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.8% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 58.7% | 52.3% |
Risk
SIMO is the more resilient| Metric | ONTO | SIMO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.09 | 2.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.99 | 1.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.65 | 2.37 |
| Max drawdown | -42.3% | -37.8% |
| Current drawdown | -42% | -36.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 71.5% | 86.2% |
| 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 SIMO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SIMO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 47 against ONTO'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 ONTO or SIMO the better buy right now?
SIMO 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 SIMO over ONTO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SIMO leads Quality by 35 points; SIMO leads Value by 10 points; SIMO leads Momentum by 7 points. SIMO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ONTO 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, ONTO or SIMO?
Analyst price targets imply +71.2% upside for ONTO and +30.5% for SIMO, so the Street currently favors ONTO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SIMO. 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, ONTO or SIMO?
SIMO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SIMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 SIMO?
SIMO 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 SIMO?
SIMO on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 SIMO?
SIMO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SIMO on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ONTO more profitable than SIMO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 50.4% vs 48.9%; operating margin 12.5% vs 16.3%; ttm roe 6.5% vs 32%. ONTO leads on one measure and SIMO on two measures, 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 SIMO's lead over ONTO getting stronger or weaker?
SIMO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 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 not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ONTO vs SIMO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ONTO closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to SIMO's edge; ONTO's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SIMO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 SIMO?
ONTO: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SIMO: 2 bullish / 2 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 ONTO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SIMO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ONTO and SIMO 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.