UCTT vs UMC Stock Comparison
Compare UCTT and UMC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between UCTT and UMC?
UMC leads the current stock comparison as United Microelectronics Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. vs United Microelectronics Corporation
UMC leads
UMC leads by 24 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 17 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UCTT on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support UMC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
United Microelectronics Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UMC over UCTT, 58 versus 34 as of Sep 6, 2026. UMC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. UMC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UCTT. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMC today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 24 points over 30 sessions. UMC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc. and United Microelectronics Corporation 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 UCTT and UMC 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.
- Quality30%19 vs 63UMC +44
- Momentum25%31 vs 57UMC +26
- Risk Resilience15%34 vs 49UMC +15
- Value30%50 vs 60UMC +10
5 of 6 evidence groups favor UMC. UMC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
UMC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UCTT and UMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UMC (United Microelectronics Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
UCTT (Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 80.4% against 40.4%.
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
UMCUMC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UMCUMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UMCUMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
UMCUMC on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
UMCUMC on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
UCTTUCTT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors UMC, analyst targets favor UCTT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UCTT | UMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +70.3% | -50.9% | UCTT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +12.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UMC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UMC | 34 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | UMCon balance | revenue growth 20.8% vs 12.6%; EPS growth 147.5% vs 160.8%; TTM ROE -3.5% vs 21%; gross margin 15.8% vs 30.6%; operating margin 2.8% vs 18.9% — UMC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UMC | Value 50 vs 60 |
| Technicals | UMC | Price vs 50-day -19.1% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 7.9% vs 45.6% |
| Risk Resilience | UMC | Risk Resilience 34 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | UCTT | Target upside 70.3% vs -50.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UCTT and UMC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 24 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 UMC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 24 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UMC +24
- 34 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- UMC +24
- 32 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- UMC +17
- 37 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- UMC +19
- 40 vs 59
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 (33.34%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.63%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (46.60%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
UMC 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 +8.77%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +4.58%, 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.
- 1UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMC's edge.
- 2UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3UMC'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
UMC leads on balance| Metric | UCTT | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 20.8% | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 147.5% | 160.8% |
| Gross margin | 15.8% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 2.8% | 18.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.5% | 21% |
| Debt to equity | 1.21 | 0.12 |
Performance
UMC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | UCTT | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.2% | 5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -17% | 11% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.7% | 5.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 43.3% | 116.4% |
| Year to date | 185.9% | 164.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 210.3% | 212.3% |
Technicals
UMC has the stronger structure| Metric | UCTT | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.3 | 59.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.6 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -19.1% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 7.9% | 45.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 80.4% | 40.4% |
Risk
UMC is the more resilient| Metric | UCTT | UMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.62 | 1.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.67 | 2.03 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.61 | 3.59 |
| Max drawdown | -54.3% | -38.9% |
| Current drawdown | -49.2% | -25.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 87.2% | 62.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.5% | -5.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UCTT or UMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UMC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against UCTT's 34. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 UCTT or UMC the better buy right now?
UMC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor UMC over UCTT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. UMC leads Quality by 44 points; UMC leads Momentum by 26 points; UMC leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. UMC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by UCTT simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, UCTT or UMC?
Analyst price targets imply +70.3% upside for UCTT and -50.9% for UMC, so the Street currently favors UCTT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors UMC. 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, UCTT or UMC?
UMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, UCTT or UMC?
UMC 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, UCTT or UMC?
UMC on the Momentum factor, by 26 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, UCTT or UMC?
UMC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UMC on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 UCTT more profitable than UMC?
UMC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 15.8% vs 30.6%; operating margin 2.8% vs 18.9%; ttm roe -3.5% vs 21%.
Is UMC's lead over UCTT getting stronger or weaker?
UMC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 24 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the UCTT vs UMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to UMC's edge; UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; UMC'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 UCTT and UMC?
UCTT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UMC: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 UCTT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UMC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare UCTT and UMC 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.