SLAB vs STM Stock Comparison
Silicon Laboratories Inc. vs STMicroelectronics N.V.
SLAB leads
SLAB leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors STM on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SLAB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Silicon Laboratories Inc.
STMicroelectronics N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLAB over STM, 57 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. SLAB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while STM holds the stronger value profile. SLAB also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors STM. 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 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Silicon Laboratories Inc. and STMicroelectronics N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare SLAB and STM 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%89 vs 54SLAB +35
- Momentum25%73 vs 41SLAB +32
- Quality30%57 vs 45SLAB +12
- Value30%29 vs 40STM +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SLAB. SLAB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; STM keeps a meaningful value 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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2
No new signals fired.
SLAB's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SLAB and STM 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.
STM (STMicroelectronics N.V.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.5% 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
SLABSLAB on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
STMSTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
SLABSLAB on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
SLABSLAB on Risk Resilience, by 35 points.
Analyst upside
STMSTM 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 STM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SLAB | STM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +4.7% | +39.8% | STM has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +71.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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 | 57 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | STMon balance | revenue growth 6.9% vs 12.7%; EPS growth 33.3% vs 5.3%; TTM ROE -3.6% vs 2.7%; gross margin 59.9% vs 34.3%; operating margin -3.8% vs 5.8% — STM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | STM | Value 29 vs 40 |
| Technicals | SLAB | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -9.9%; vs 200-day 13.8% vs 15.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SLAB | Risk Resilience 89 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | STM | Target upside 4.7% vs 39.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SLAB and STM 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLAB +13
- 57 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- SLAB +13
- 55 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- SLAB +11
- 57 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- SLAB +8
- 55 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.
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
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.99%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.05%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.87%, 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.
- 1STM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge.
- 2STM'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
STM leads on balance| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | 12.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 33.3% | 5.3% |
| Gross margin | 59.9% | 34.3% |
| Operating margin | -3.8% | 5.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.6% | 2.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.23 |
Performance
STM leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.9% | 5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.6% | -6.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.1% | -26.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.8% | 66.6% |
| Year to date | 68.5% | 101.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 68.3% | 102.5% |
Technicals
SLAB has the stronger structure| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63 | 38.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 26.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -9.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.8% | 15.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 3.7% | 40.5% |
Risk
SLAB is the more resilient| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.59 | 2.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | 1.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.8 | 1.92 |
| Max drawdown | -17.8% | -39.5% |
| Current drawdown | -0.1% | -34.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.2% | 59.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SLAB or STM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SLAB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 57 against STM's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. STM is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 SLAB or STM the better buy right now?
SLAB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 STM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SLAB leads Risk Resilience by 35 points; SLAB leads Momentum by 32 points; SLAB leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SLAB or STM?
Analyst price targets imply +4.7% upside for SLAB and +39.8% for STM, so the Street currently favors STM. 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, SLAB or STM?
STM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. STM 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, SLAB or STM?
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, SLAB or STM?
SLAB on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, SLAB or STM?
SLAB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SLAB on Risk Resilience, by 35 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 SLAB more profitable than STM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 59.9% vs 34.3%; operating margin -3.8% vs 5.8%; ttm roe -3.6% vs 2.7%. SLAB leads on one measure and STM on two measures, 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 STM getting stronger or weaker?
SLAB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SLAB vs STM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge; STM'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 SLAB and STM?
SLAB: 5 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. STM: 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 SLAB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On STM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SLAB and STM 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.