RMBS vs SLAB Stock Comparison
Compare RMBS and SLAB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RMBS and SLAB?
SLAB leads the current stock comparison as Silicon Laboratories Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rambus Inc. vs Silicon Laboratories Inc.
SLAB leads
SLAB leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors RMBS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SLAB, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Rambus Inc.
Silicon Laboratories Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLAB over RMBS, 57 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. SLAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while RMBS holds the stronger quality profile. SLAB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RMBS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SLAB today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rambus Inc. and Silicon Laboratories Inc. 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 SLAB 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.
- Risk Resilience45 vs 89SLAB +44
- Momentum31 vs 70SLAB +39
- Quality77 vs 57RMBS +20
- Value40 vs 29RMBS +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SLAB. SLAB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; RMBS keeps a meaningful quality 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 +1
No new signals fired.
SLAB's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMBS and SLAB both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SLAB (Silicon Laboratories Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
RMBS (Rambus Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 43% against 3.7%.
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
SLABSLAB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SLABSLAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMBSRMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
SLABSLAB on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
SLABSLAB on Risk Resilience, by 44 points.
Analyst upside
RMBSRMBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SLAB, analyst targets favor RMBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RMBS | SLAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +86% | +4.8% | RMBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 1 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SLAB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SLAB | 50 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | RMBSon balance | revenue growth 15.1% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 14.5% vs 33.3%; TTM ROE 17.4% vs -3.6%; gross margin 78.3% vs 59.9%; operating margin 35.5% vs -3.8% — RMBS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMBS | Value 40 vs 29 |
| Technicals | SLAB | Price vs 50-day -10.2% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day -20.9% vs 12.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SLAB | Risk Resilience 45 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | RMBS | Target upside 86% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RMBS and SLAB 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 SLAB.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLAB +7
- 50 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SLAB +9
- 48 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SLAB +6
- 52 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SLAB +3
- 44 vs 47
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 18 when RMBS moved ahead of SLAB.
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%)
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.65%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
RMBS 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.
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 +0.54%, 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.
- 1RMBS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge.
- 2RMBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SLAB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 33.3% |
| Gross margin | 78.3% | 59.9% |
| Operating margin | 35.5% | -3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.4% | -3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0 |
Performance
SLAB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RMBS | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.5% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.2% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | 8.7% |
| Year to date | -7.1% | 67.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 62.6% |
Technicals
SLAB has the stronger structure| Metric | RMBS | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 60.1 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.2% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.9% | 12.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43% | 3.7% |
Risk
SLAB is the more resilient| Metric | RMBS | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.51 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 1.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 2.76 |
| Max drawdown | -51.5% | -17.8% |
| Current drawdown | -50% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.3% | 55.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMBS or SLAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLAB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against RMBS's 50. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. RMBS is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 SLAB the better buy right now?
SLAB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 SLAB over RMBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SLAB leads Risk Resilience by 44 points; SLAB leads Momentum by 39 points; RMBS leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RMBS or SLAB?
Analyst price targets imply +86% upside for RMBS and +4.8% for SLAB, so the Street currently favors RMBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SLAB. 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, RMBS or SLAB?
RMBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 SLAB?
SLAB 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 SLAB?
SLAB on the Momentum factor, by 39 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 SLAB?
SLAB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SLAB on Risk Resilience, by 44 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 SLAB?
RMBS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 78.3% vs 59.9%; operating margin 35.5% vs -3.8%; ttm roe 17.4% vs -3.6%.
Is SLAB's lead over RMBS getting stronger or weaker?
SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-18, when RMBS moved ahead of SLAB.
What would change the RMBS vs SLAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RMBS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge; RMBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SLAB's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 SLAB?
RMBS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SLAB: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 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 SLAB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RMBS and SLAB 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.