SIMO vs SLAB Stock Comparison
Silicon Motion Technology Corporation vs Silicon Laboratories Inc.
SLAB leads
SLAB leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors SIMO on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support SLAB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Silicon Motion Technology Corporation
Silicon Laboratories Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLAB over SIMO, 57 versus 55 as of Sep 5, 2026. SLAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while SIMO 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 SIMO. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SLAB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Silicon Motion Technology Corporation and Silicon Laboratories Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SIMO 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 Resilience15%45 vs 89SLAB +44
- Momentum25%46 vs 73SLAB +27
- Quality30%83 vs 57SIMO +26
- Value30%38 vs 29SIMO +9
1 of 6 evidence groups favor SLAB. SLAB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; SIMO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
SLAB's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SIMO 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.
SIMO (Silicon Motion Technology Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 87.1% 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 at 30% each.
Growth
SIMOSIMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SIMOSIMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
SLABSLAB on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
SLABSLAB on Risk Resilience, by 44 points.
Analyst upside
SIMOSIMO 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 SIMO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SIMO | SLAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.2% | +4.7% | SIMO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +75.9% | 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
1 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 | Even | 55 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | SIMOon balance | revenue growth 31.8% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 102.5% vs 33.3%; TTM ROE 32% vs -3.6%; gross margin 48.9% vs 59.9%; operating margin 16.3% vs -3.8% — SIMO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SIMO | Value 38 vs 29 |
| Technicals | SIMO | Price vs 50-day -4.5% vs 1%; vs 200-day 39% vs 13.8% |
| Risk Resilience | SLAB | Risk Resilience 45 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | SIMO | Target upside 13.2% vs 4.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SIMO and SLAB 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 SLAB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLAB +2
- 55 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SIMO +3
- 58 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- SLAB +3
- 54 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- SIMO +8
- 63 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when SLAB moved ahead of SIMO.
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 / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (45.50%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.46%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
SLAB 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +8.7%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.06%, 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.
- 1SIMO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge.
- 2SIMO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SLAB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | SIMO | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 31.8% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 102.5% | 33.3% |
| Gross margin | 48.9% | 59.9% |
| Operating margin | 16.3% | -3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 32% | -3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.06 | 0 |
Performance
SIMO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SIMO | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0% | 0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1% | 1.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 116.5% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 176.4% | 68.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 222.3% | 68.3% |
Technicals
SIMO has the stronger structure| Metric | SIMO | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.3 | 63 |
| ADX (14) | 10.4 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.5% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 39% | 13.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 87.1% | 3.7% |
Risk
SLAB is the more resilient| Metric | SIMO | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.35 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.72 | 1.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.35 | 2.8 |
| Max drawdown | -37.8% | -17.8% |
| Current drawdown | -23.9% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 83.4% | 55.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SIMO or SLAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLAB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 57 against SIMO's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. SIMO 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 SIMO or SLAB the better buy right now?
SLAB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SLAB over SIMO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SLAB leads Risk Resilience by 44 points; SLAB leads Momentum by 27 points; SIMO leads Quality by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SIMO or SLAB?
Analyst price targets imply +13.2% upside for SIMO and +4.7% for SLAB, so the Street currently favors SIMO. 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, SIMO or SLAB?
SIMO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SIMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, SIMO or SLAB?
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, SIMO or SLAB?
SLAB on the Momentum factor, by 27 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, SIMO 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. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is SIMO more profitable than SLAB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.9% vs 59.9%; operating margin 16.3% vs -3.8%; ttm roe 32% vs -3.6%. SIMO leads on two measures and SLAB 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 SLAB's lead over SIMO getting stronger or weaker?
SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when SLAB moved ahead of SIMO.
What would change the SIMO vs SLAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SIMO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge; SIMO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SLAB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about SIMO and SLAB?
SIMO: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SLAB: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 SIMO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SLAB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SIMO and SLAB with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.