SLAB vs STM Stock Comparison
SLAB currently leads STM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 39. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while STM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between SLAB and STM?
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
Silicon Laboratories Inc. vs STMicroelectronics N.V.
SLAB leads
SLAB leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors STM on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SLAB, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Silicon Laboratories Inc.
STMicroelectronics N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SLAB over STM, 53 versus 39 as of Oct 21, 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 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.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
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 Resilience90 vs 51SLAB +39
- Momentum56 vs 22SLAB +34
- Quality57 vs 45SLAB +12
- Value29 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 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SLAB's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
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, 46% against 3%.
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
STMSTM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
SLABSLAB on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
SLABSLAB on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 | +4.2% | +62.4% | STM has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +51.9% | 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 | 53 vs 39 |
| 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 0.7% vs -7.6%; vs 200-day 6.6% vs -7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | SLAB | Risk Resilience 90 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | STM | Target upside 4.2% vs 62.4% |
✓ 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 14 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 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20SLAB lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SLAB +14
- 53 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- SLAB +15
- 54 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- SLAB +5
- 56 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- SLAB +10
- 58 vs 48
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only SLAB
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.43%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.9%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only STM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.39%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.28%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +3.6%, 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.
- 1STM closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge.
- 2STM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3SLAB'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
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
SLAB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -7.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | -14.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.8% | -30.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.7% | 3.3% |
| Year to date | 69.2% | 76.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 60.5% | 56.8% |
Technicals
SLAB has the stronger structure| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 43.5 | 30.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 22.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.7% | -7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.6% | -7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 3% | 46% |
Risk
SLAB is the more resilient| Metric | SLAB | STM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.35 | 2.72 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.05 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | 3.45 | 1.37 |
| Max drawdown | -15.6% | -43.2% |
| Current drawdown | -0.8% | -42.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.3% | 60.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -5.6% |
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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 against STM's 39. 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 Oct 21, 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, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SLAB leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; SLAB leads Momentum by 34 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 +4.2% upside for SLAB and +62.4% 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 34 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, 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 39 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 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to SLAB's edge; STM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; SLAB'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 SLAB and STM?
SLAB: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. STM: 1 bullish / 2 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 SLAB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On STM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SLAB and STM 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.