TXN vs ON Stock Comparison
Texas Instruments Incorporated vs ON Semiconductor Corporation
TXN leads
TXN leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors ON on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TXN, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Texas Instruments Incorporated
ON Semiconductor Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TXN over ON, 49 versus 43 as of Sep 2, 2026. TXN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while ON holds the stronger value profile. TXN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ON. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TXN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. TXN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Texas Instruments Incorporated and ON Semiconductor Corporation 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.
- Quality30%80 vs 46TXN +34
- Value30%30 vs 55ON +25
- Risk Resilience15%58 vs 37TXN +21
- Momentum25%30 vs 30Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TXN. TXN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; ON keeps a meaningful value 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.
TXN's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — TXN and ON both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TXN (Texas Instruments Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
ON (ON Semiconductor Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.1% against 34.8%.
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
TXNTXN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
TXNTXN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ONON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TXNTXN on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
ONON on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TXN, analyst targets favor ON. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | TXN | ON | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +21.8% | +51.1% | ON has more room |
| Target dispersion | +60.9% | +99.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 9 | 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 TXN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TXN | 49 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | TXN | revenue growth 13.2% vs 6%; EPS growth 25.9% vs 8.2%; ROE 35.8% vs 8.4%; gross margin 58.3% vs 37.4%; operating margin 37.3% vs 11.7% |
| Valuation | ON | Value 30 vs 55 |
| Technicals | TXN | Price vs 50-day -10% vs -16.5%; vs 200-day 9.9% vs -4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TXN | Risk Resilience 58 vs 37 |
| Analyst expectations | ON | Target upside 21.8% vs 51.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of TXN and ON 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 TXN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1TXN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TXN +6
- 49 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- TXN +6
- 49 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- TXN +8
- 52 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- TXN +8
- 50 vs 42
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.87%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.19%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.90%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
TXN 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 +1.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.38%, 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.
- 1ON closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to TXN's edge.
- 2ON's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3TXN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
TXN leads on balance| Metric | TXN | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.2% | 6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25.9% | 8.2% |
| Gross margin | 58.3% | 37.4% |
| Operating margin | 37.3% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity | 35.8% | 8.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.78 | 0.62 |
Technicals
TXN has the stronger structure| Metric | TXN | ON |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 32.8 | 35.2 |
| ADX (14) | 22.1 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10% | -16.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.9% | -4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.8% | 41.1% |
Risk
TXN is the more resilient| Metric | TXN | ON |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.4 | 2.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.25 | 1.2 |
| Max drawdown | -24.9% | -46.3% |
| Current drawdown | -21.5% | -44.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.5% | 61.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, TXN or ON?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TXN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 49 against ON's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. ON 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 TXN or ON the better buy right now?
TXN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor TXN over ON?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. TXN leads Quality by 34 points; ON leads Value by 25 points; TXN leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, TXN or ON?
Analyst price targets imply +21.8% upside for TXN and +51.1% for ON, so the Street currently favors ON. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TXN. 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, TXN or ON?
ON is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ON on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, TXN or ON?
TXN 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, TXN or ON?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, TXN or ON?
TXN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXN on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 TXN more profitable than ON?
TXN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 58.3% vs 37.4%; operating margin 37.3% vs 11.7%; roe 35.8% vs 8.4%.
Is TXN's lead over ON getting stronger or weaker?
TXN lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the TXN vs ON verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ON closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to TXN's edge; ON's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; TXN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 TXN and ON?
TXN: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ON: 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 TXN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ON it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare TXN and ON 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.