AKAM vs ANET Stock Comparison
ANET currently leads AKAM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while AKAM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AKAM and ANET?
ANET leads the current stock comparison as Arista Networks, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Akamai Technologies, Inc. vs Arista Networks, Inc.
ANET leads
ANET leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AKAM on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ANET, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Arista Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANET over AKAM, 48 versus 41 as of Oct 22, 2026. ANET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while AKAM holds the stronger value profile. ANET also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AKAM. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANET today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. ANET lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Arista Networks, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare AKAM and ANET 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.
- Quality34 vs 89ANET +55
- Value69 vs 26AKAM +43
- Risk Resilience34 vs 53ANET +19
- Momentum19 vs 22Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ANET. ANET’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; AKAM 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ANET's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AKAM and ANET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
AKAM (Akamai Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 56.2% against 40.5%.
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
ANETANET on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ANETANET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AKAMAKAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 43 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
AKAMAKAM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ANET, analyst targets favor AKAM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AKAM | ANET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +79.2% | +17.3% | AKAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.1% | +57.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 14 | 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 ANET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ANET | 41 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | ANET | revenue growth 2.4% vs 12.1%; EPS growth -24.7% vs 18.5%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 30.8%; gross margin 56.4% vs 63%; operating margin 11.8% vs 43.1% |
| Valuation | AKAM | Value 69 vs 26 |
| Technicals | ANET | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs -7%; vs 200-day -20.2% vs 11.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 34 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AKAM | Target upside 79.2% vs 17.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AKAM and ANET 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 7 points.
- 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 ANET.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ANET lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ANET +7
- 41 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- ANET +8
- 41 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ANET +15
- 46 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +8
- 54 vs 62
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 / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AKAM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.23%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ANET
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (21.44%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Keltner Channel Breakdown, MACD Bearish Crossover.
ANET 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.71%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.73%, 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.
- 1AKAM closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge.
- 2AKAM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ANET'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
ANET leads on balance| Metric | AKAM | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 12.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.7% | 18.5% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 63% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 43.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 30.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 0 |
Performance
ANET leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AKAM | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.3% | -11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -24.3% | -11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | 3.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.6% | 4.8% |
| Year to date | 2.7% | 38.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.8% | 24.4% |
Technicals
ANET has the stronger structure| Metric | AKAM | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.7 | 34.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17.1 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | -7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.2% | 11.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.2% | 40.5% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | AKAM | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.44 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 0.64 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -44.4% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 62% | 53.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AKAM or ANET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANET is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 48 against AKAM's 41. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. AKAM 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 AKAM or ANET the better buy right now?
ANET carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ANET over AKAM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ANET leads Quality by 55 points; AKAM leads Value by 43 points; ANET leads Risk Resilience by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AKAM or ANET?
Analyst price targets imply +79.2% upside for AKAM and +17.3% for ANET, so the Street currently favors AKAM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ANET. 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, AKAM or ANET?
AKAM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AKAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 43 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, AKAM or ANET?
ANET 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, AKAM or ANET?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AKAM or ANET?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 AKAM more profitable than ANET?
ANET leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.4% vs 63%; operating margin 11.8% vs 43.1%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 30.8%.
Is ANET's lead over AKAM getting stronger or weaker?
ANET lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 7 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 AKAM vs ANET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AKAM closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge; AKAM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate ANET's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AKAM and ANET?
AKAM: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ANET: 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 AKAM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ANET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AKAM and ANET 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.