SITM vs SLAB Stock Comparison
Compare SITM and SLAB across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SITM 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
SiTime Corporation vs Silicon Laboratories Inc.
SLAB leads
SLAB leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 17 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SITM on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SLAB, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
SiTime Corporation
Silicon Laboratories Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLAB over SITM, 57 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. SLAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. SLAB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SITM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SLAB today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SLAB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 22 points over 30 sessions. SLAB 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 SiTime Corporation 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 SITM 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 Resilience29 vs 89SLAB +60
- Momentum49 vs 70SLAB +21
- Quality38 vs 57SLAB +19
- Value24 vs 29SLAB +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SLAB. SLAB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
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 +10
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
SLAB's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SITM 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.
SITM (SiTime Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 70.6% 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
SITMSITM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SLABSLAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
SLABSLAB on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
SLABSLAB on Risk Resilience, by 60 points.
Analyst upside
SITMSITM 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 SITM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SITM | SLAB | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.9% | +4.8% | SITM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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 | 35 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | SITMon balance | revenue growth 38.6% vs 6.9%; EPS growth 4.4% vs 33.3%; TTM ROE 1.3% vs -3.6%; gross margin 58.7% vs 59.9%; operating margin -1.7% vs -3.8% — SITM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SLAB | Value 24 vs 29 |
| Technicals | SITM | Price vs 50-day 5.4% vs 0.9%; vs 200-day 19.2% vs 12.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SLAB | Risk Resilience 29 vs 89 |
| Analyst expectations | SITM | Target upside 27.9% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SITM and SLAB 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 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLAB +22
- 35 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- SLAB +26
- 31 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- SLAB +17
- 41 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- SLAB +19
- 28 vs 47
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.
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
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
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 +5.54%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1SITM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge.
- 2SITM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 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
SITM leads on balance| Metric | SITM | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 38.6% | 6.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.4% | 33.3% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 59.9% |
| Operating margin | -1.7% | -3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 1.3% | -3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.29 | 0 |
Performance
SITM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SITM | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.9% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.5% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.3% | 0.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 71.6% | 8.7% |
| Year to date | 70.5% | 67.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 146.3% | 62.6% |
Technicals
SITM has the stronger structure| Metric | SITM | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.8 | 60.1 |
| ADX (14) | 12.4 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.4% | 0.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.2% | 12.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 70.6% | 3.7% |
Risk
SLAB is the more resilient| Metric | SITM | SLAB |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.82 | 0.59 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.41 | 1.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.62 | 2.76 |
| Max drawdown | -48.7% | -17.8% |
| Current drawdown | -33.2% | -0.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 85.7% | 55.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SITM or SLAB?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLAB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against SITM's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 SITM or SLAB the better buy right now?
SLAB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 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 SLAB over SITM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SLAB leads Risk Resilience by 60 points; SLAB leads Momentum by 21 points; SLAB leads Quality by 19 points. SLAB leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by SITM 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, SITM or SLAB?
Analyst price targets imply +27.9% upside for SITM and +4.8% for SLAB, so the Street currently favors SITM. 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, SITM or SLAB?
SLAB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SLAB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, SITM or SLAB?
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, SITM or SLAB?
SLAB on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, SITM or SLAB?
SLAB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SLAB on Risk Resilience, by 60 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 SITM more profitable than SLAB?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.7% vs 59.9%; operating margin -1.7% vs -3.8%; ttm roe 1.3% vs -3.6%. SITM 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 SITM getting stronger or weaker?
SLAB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 22 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 SITM vs SLAB verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SITM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 60 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge; SITM's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; 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 SITM and SLAB?
SITM: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. SLAB: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on SITM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SLAB it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SITM 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.