RMBS vs SITM Stock Comparison
Compare RMBS and SITM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RMBS and SITM?
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
Rambus Inc. vs SiTime Corporation
RMBS leads
RMBS leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support RMBS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Rambus Inc.
SiTime Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors RMBS over SITM, 50 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. RMBS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while SITM holds the stronger momentum profile. RMBS also shows the weaker 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: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rambus Inc. and SiTime 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 RMBS and SITM 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.
- Quality77 vs 38RMBS +39
- Momentum31 vs 49SITM +18
- Value40 vs 24RMBS +16
- Risk Resilience45 vs 29RMBS +16
5 of 6 evidence groups favor RMBS. RMBS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; SITM keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
RMBS's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMBS and SITM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
RMBS (Rambus Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
SITM (SiTime Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 70.6% against 43%.
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
SITMSITM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMBSRMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
SITMSITM on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
RMBSRMBS on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
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 | RMBS | SITM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +86% | +27.9% | RMBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | +49.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 6 | 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 | 50 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | RMBSon balance | revenue growth 15.1% vs 38.6%; EPS growth 14.5% vs 4.4%; TTM ROE 17.4% vs 1.3%; gross margin 78.3% vs 58.7%; operating margin 35.5% vs -1.7% — RMBS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMBS | Value 40 vs 24 |
| Technicals | SITM | Price vs 50-day -10.2% vs 5.4%; vs 200-day -20.9% vs 19.2% |
| Risk Resilience | RMBS | Risk Resilience 45 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | RMBS | Target upside 86% vs 27.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RMBS and SITM 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)
- 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 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- RMBS +15
- 50 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- RMBS +17
- 48 vs 31
- 30 sessions ago
- RMBS +11
- 52 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- RMBS +16
- 44 vs 28
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.42%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.33%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.39%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.82%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.9%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +5.54%, 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.
- 1SITM closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge.
- 2SITM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode 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 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
RMBS leads on balance| Metric | RMBS | SITM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | 38.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 4.4% |
| Gross margin | 78.3% | 58.7% |
| Operating margin | 35.5% | -1.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.4% | 1.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 1.29 |
Performance
SITM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RMBS | SITM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.5% | -11.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.2% | -9.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | 71.6% |
| Year to date | -7.1% | 70.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 146.3% |
Technicals
SITM has the stronger structure| Metric | RMBS | SITM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 50.8 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 12.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.2% | 5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.9% | 19.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43% | 70.6% |
Risk
RMBS is the more resilient| Metric | RMBS | SITM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.51 | 2.82 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 1.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 2.62 |
| Max drawdown | -51.5% | -48.7% |
| Current drawdown | -50% | -33.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.3% | 85.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -7.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMBS or SITM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, RMBS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against SITM's 35. The edge comes from quality and value. SITM is not without a case — it holds the better momentum profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 RMBS or SITM the better buy right now?
RMBS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 SITM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. RMBS leads Quality by 39 points; SITM leads Momentum by 18 points; RMBS leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RMBS or SITM?
Analyst price targets imply +86% upside for RMBS and +27.9% for SITM, 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, RMBS or SITM?
RMBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, RMBS or SITM?
SITM 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, RMBS or SITM?
SITM on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, RMBS or SITM?
RMBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RMBS on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 RMBS more profitable than SITM?
RMBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 78.3% vs 58.7%; operating margin 35.5% vs -1.7%; ttm roe 17.4% vs 1.3%.
Is RMBS's lead over SITM getting stronger or weaker?
RMBS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the RMBS vs SITM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SITM closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to RMBS's edge; SITM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode 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 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 RMBS and SITM?
RMBS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SITM: 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 RMBS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SITM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RMBS and SITM 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.