SMCI vs ASML Stock Comparison
Super Micro Computer, Inc. vs ASML Holding N.V.
SMCI leads
SMCI leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ASML. Wall Street currently favors ASML on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support SMCI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
ASML Holding N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMCI over ASML, 60 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. SMCI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ASML holds the stronger quality profile. SMCI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ASML. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SMCI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. SMCI lead: Reversed — ASML led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMCI now leads by 12.
Compare Super Micro Computer, Inc. and ASML Holding N.V. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%73 vs 18SMCI +55
- Value30%72 vs 26SMCI +46
- Quality30%51 vs 92ASML +41
- Risk Resilience15%35 vs 55ASML +20
3 of 6 evidence groups favor SMCI. SMCI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ASML keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
SMCI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMCI and ASML both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SMCI (Super Micro Computer, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ASML (ASML Holding N.V.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
SMCISMCI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
SMCISMCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SMCISMCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 46 points.
Momentum
SMCISMCI on the Momentum factor, by 55 points.
Lower downside
ASMLASML on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
ASMLASML on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SMCI, analyst targets favor ASML. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SMCI | ASML | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +26.9% | ASML has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.3% | +43.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 4 | 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 SMCI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SMCI | 60 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | ASMLon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs 6.4%; EPS growth 133.3% vs 6.2%; ROE 24.9% vs 52.4%; gross margin 10.8% vs 52.7%; operating margin 7.1% vs 35.4% — ASML takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SMCI | Value 72 vs 26 |
| Technicals | SMCI | Price vs 50-day 16% vs -5.1%; vs 200-day 19% vs 15.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ASML | Risk Resilience 35 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | ASML | Target upside 11.7% vs 26.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SMCI and ASML 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 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 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 SMCI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1SMCI lead: Reversed — ASML led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMCI now leads by 12.
- Today
- SMCI +12
- 60 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- SMCI +10
- 61 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- ASML +1
- 56 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- ASML +6
- 49 vs 55
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when SMCI moved ahead of ASML.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.18%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
SMCI 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 -0.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.53%, 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.
- 1ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMCI's edge.
- 2ASML's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3SMCI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
ASML leads on balance| Metric | SMCI | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | 6.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 133.3% | 6.2% |
| Gross margin | 10.8% | 52.7% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 35.4% |
| Return on equity | 24.9% | 52.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.09 |
Technicals
SMCI has the stronger structure| Metric | SMCI | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 33.7 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 11.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16% | -5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | 15.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 95.9% | 33.8% |
Risk
ASML is the more resilient| Metric | SMCI | ASML |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.75 | 2.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 1.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 3.24 |
| Max drawdown | -65% | -22.1% |
| Current drawdown | -36.5% | -14.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 91.6% | 46.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SMCI or ASML?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SMCI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 60 against ASML's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. ASML 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 SMCI or ASML the better buy right now?
SMCI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SMCI over ASML?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. SMCI leads Momentum by 55 points; SMCI leads Value by 46 points; ASML leads Quality by 41 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SMCI or ASML?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for SMCI and +26.9% for ASML, so the Street currently favors ASML. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SMCI. 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, SMCI or ASML?
SMCI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SMCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 46 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, SMCI or ASML?
SMCI 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, SMCI or ASML?
SMCI on the Momentum factor, by 55 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, SMCI or ASML?
ASML is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ASML on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 SMCI more profitable than ASML?
ASML leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 10.8% vs 52.7%; operating margin 7.1% vs 35.4%; roe 24.9% vs 52.4%.
Is SMCI's lead over ASML getting stronger or weaker?
SMCI lead: Reversed — ASML led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SMCI now leads by 12. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when SMCI moved ahead of ASML.
What would change the SMCI vs ASML verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ASML closes the Momentum gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMCI's edge; ASML's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; SMCI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 SMCI and ASML?
SMCI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ASML: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 SMCI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ASML it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SMCI and ASML 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.