RMBS vs SMTC Stock Comparison
Compare RMBS and SMTC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RMBS and SMTC?
SMTC leads the current stock comparison as Semtech Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rambus Inc. vs Semtech Corporation
SMTC leads
SMTC leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from RMBS. Wall Street currently favors RMBS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support SMTC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Rambus Inc.
Semtech Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMTC over RMBS, 55 versus 50 as of Sep 11, 2026. SMTC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while RMBS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. SMTC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors RMBS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SMTC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SMTC lead: Reversed — RMBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMTC now leads by 5.
Compare Rambus Inc. and Semtech 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 SMTC 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.
- Momentum31 vs 90SMTC +59
- Risk Resilience45 vs 27RMBS +18
- Value40 vs 26RMBS +14
- Quality77 vs 68RMBS +9
2 of 6 evidence groups favor SMTC. SMTC’s edge is concentrated in momentum; RMBS keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SMTC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMBS and SMTC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SMTC (Semtech Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
RMBS (Rambus Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, quality.
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
SMTCSMTC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RMBSRMBS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMBSRMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
SMTCSMTC on the Momentum factor, by 59 points.
Lower downside
RMBSRMBS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 SMTC, analyst targets favor RMBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | RMBS | SMTC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +86% | +14.1% | RMBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | +102.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 14 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SMTC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SMTC | 50 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | RMBSon balance | revenue growth 15.1% vs 17.5%; EPS growth 14.5% vs 4.9%; TTM ROE 17.4% vs 25.3%; gross margin 78.3% vs 52%; operating margin 35.5% vs 12.7% — RMBS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMBS | Value 40 vs 26 |
| Technicals | SMTC | Price vs 50-day -10.2% vs 25.6%; vs 200-day -20.9% vs 46.1% |
| Risk Resilience | RMBS | Risk Resilience 45 vs 27 |
| Analyst expectations | RMBS | Target upside 86% vs 14.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of RMBS and SMTC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SMTC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SMTC lead: Reversed — RMBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMTC now leads by 5.
- Today
- SMTC +5
- 50 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- RMBS +13
- 52 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- RMBS +15
- 44 vs 29
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when SMTC moved ahead of RMBS.
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%)
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.29%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
SMTC 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +5.1%, 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.
- 1RMBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMTC's edge.
- 2RMBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SMTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 | SMTC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.1% | 17.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 4.9% |
| Gross margin | 78.3% | 52% |
| Operating margin | 35.5% | 12.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.4% | 25.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.7 |
Performance
SMTC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RMBS | SMTC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.7% | 18.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.5% | 13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.2% | 3.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -7.8% | 85.4% |
| Year to date | -7.1% | 115.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.5% | 162.5% |
Technicals
SMTC has the stronger structure| Metric | RMBS | SMTC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 35.8 | 72.6 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 12.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.2% | 25.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.9% | 46.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43% | 99.3% |
Risk
RMBS is the more resilient| Metric | RMBS | SMTC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.51 | 3.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | 1.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 2.59 |
| Max drawdown | -51.5% | -40.7% |
| Current drawdown | -50% | -8.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.3% | 75.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.8% | -7.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMBS or SMTC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SMTC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 55 against RMBS's 50. The edge comes from momentum. RMBS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 SMTC the better buy right now?
SMTC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SMTC over RMBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SMTC leads Momentum by 59 points; RMBS leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; RMBS leads Value by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RMBS or SMTC?
Analyst price targets imply +86% upside for RMBS and +14.1% for SMTC, so the Street currently favors RMBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SMTC. 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 SMTC?
RMBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 SMTC?
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, RMBS or SMTC?
SMTC on the Momentum factor, by 59 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 SMTC?
RMBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. RMBS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 SMTC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 78.3% vs 52%; operating margin 35.5% vs 12.7%; ttm roe 17.4% vs 25.3%. RMBS leads on two measures and SMTC on one measure, 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 SMTC's lead over RMBS getting stronger or weaker?
SMTC lead: Reversed — RMBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMTC now leads by 5. 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 2026-09-02, when SMTC moved ahead of RMBS.
What would change the RMBS vs SMTC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RMBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 59 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMTC's edge; RMBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SMTC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 SMTC?
RMBS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SMTC: 4 bullish / 1 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 RMBS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SMTC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RMBS and SMTC 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.