SWKS vs TER Stock Comparison
Compare SWKS and TER across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SWKS and TER?
SWKS leads the current stock comparison as Skyworks Solutions, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Skyworks Solutions, Inc. vs Teradyne, Inc.
SWKS leads
SWKS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors TER on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SWKS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Skyworks Solutions, Inc.
Teradyne, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SWKS over TER, 66 versus 61 as of Sep 12, 2026. SWKS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while TER holds the stronger quality profile. SWKS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors TER. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SWKS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. SWKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Skyworks Solutions, Inc. and Teradyne, 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 SWKS and TER 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.
- Quality52 vs 94TER +42
- Value72 vs 32SWKS +40
- Momentum85 vs 69SWKS +16
- Risk Resilience51 vs 41SWKS +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SWKS. SWKS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; TER keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-11, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-10.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No new signals fired.
SWKS's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SWKS and TER both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SWKS (Skyworks Solutions, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
TER (Teradyne, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 62% against 48.5%.
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
SWKSSWKS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TERTER on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SWKSSWKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
SWKSSWKS on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
SWKSSWKS on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
TERTER on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SWKS, analyst targets favor TER. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | SWKS | TER | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -20.9% | +12.8% | TER has more room |
| Target dispersion | +55.8% | +46.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SWKS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SWKS | 66 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | TER | EPS growth -8.3% vs -6.3%; TTM ROE 5% vs 38%; gross margin 40.7% vs 59.3%; operating margin 7.9% vs 30.6% |
| Valuation | SWKS | Value 72 vs 32 |
| Technicals | SWKS | Price vs 50-day 33.9% vs 3.8%; vs 200-day 30.5% vs 18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | SWKS | Risk Resilience 51 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | TER | Target upside -20.9% vs 12.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SWKS and TER 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 SWKS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 11SWKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SWKS +5
- 66 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- SWKS +18
- 66 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- SWKS +8
- 64 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- SWKS +1
- 49 vs 48
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when SWKS moved ahead of TER.
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.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.65%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.11%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.65%)
SWKS 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 +5.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.57%, 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.
- 1TER closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to SWKS's edge.
- 2TER's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3SWKS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate SWKS's advantage entirely.
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
TER leads on balance| Metric | SWKS | TER |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.9% | 3.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | -6.3% |
| Gross margin | 40.7% | 59.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.9% | 30.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5% | 38% |
| Debt to equity | 0.12 | 0.03 |
Performance
SWKS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | SWKS | TER |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 18.5% | 12.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 26.6% | -7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 21.5% | -0.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 41.6% | 32.5% |
| Year to date | 29.9% | 96.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14% | 230% |
Technicals
SWKS has the stronger structure| Metric | SWKS | TER |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.4 | 51.4 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 10.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 33.9% | 3.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30.5% | 18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.5% | 62% |
Risk
SWKS is the more resilient| Metric | SWKS | TER |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 3.27 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.54 | 1.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.81 | 2.73 |
| Max drawdown | -36.7% | -34% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -21.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.4% | 76.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SWKS or TER?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SWKS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 12, 2026, scoring 66 against TER's 61. The edge comes from value and momentum. TER 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 SWKS or TER the better buy right now?
SWKS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 12, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SWKS over TER?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TER leads Quality by 42 points; SWKS leads Value by 40 points; SWKS leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SWKS or TER?
Analyst price targets imply -20.9% upside for SWKS and +12.8% for TER, so the Street currently favors TER. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SWKS. 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, SWKS or TER?
SWKS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SWKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, SWKS or TER?
TER 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, SWKS or TER?
SWKS on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, SWKS or TER?
SWKS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SWKS on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 SWKS more profitable than TER?
TER leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 40.7% vs 59.3%; operating margin 7.9% vs 30.6%; ttm roe 5% vs 38%.
Is SWKS's lead over TER getting stronger or weaker?
SWKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-11. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when SWKS moved ahead of TER.
What would change the SWKS vs TER verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TER closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to SWKS's edge; TER's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; SWKS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate SWKS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about SWKS and TER?
SWKS: 6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TER: 3 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 SWKS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TER it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SWKS and TER 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.