AKAM vs CSCO Stock Comparison
CSCO currently leads AKAM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while AKAM has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AKAM and CSCO?
CSCO leads the current stock comparison as Cisco Systems, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Akamai Technologies, Inc. vs Cisco Systems, Inc.
CSCO leads
CSCO leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 13 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AKAM on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CSCO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Akamai Technologies, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CSCO over AKAM, 59 versus 41 as of Oct 22, 2026. CSCO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while AKAM holds the stronger value profile. CSCO 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 CSCO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Akamai Technologies, Inc. and Cisco Systems, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AKAM and CSCO 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 78CSCO +44
- Momentum19 vs 44CSCO +25
- Risk Resilience34 vs 59CSCO +25
- Value69 vs 53AKAM +16
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CSCO. CSCO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CSCO's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AKAM and CSCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CSCO (Cisco Systems, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
AKAM (Akamai Technologies, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 56.2% against 30.9%.
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
CSCOCSCO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CSCOCSCO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AKAMAKAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
CSCOCSCO on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
CSCOCSCO on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 CSCO, analyst targets favor AKAM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AKAM | CSCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +79.2% | +20.5% | AKAM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.1% | +30.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 13 | 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 CSCO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CSCO | 41 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | CSCO | revenue growth 2.4% vs 8.9%; EPS growth -24.7% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 8.5% vs 27.4%; gross margin 56.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 11.8% vs 24.3% |
| Valuation | AKAM | Value 69 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CSCO | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day -20.2% vs 7% |
| Risk Resilience | CSCO | Risk Resilience 34 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | AKAM | Target upside 79.2% vs 20.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AKAM and CSCO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (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 CSCO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CSCO +18
- 41 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CSCO +21
- 41 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- CSCO +13
- 46 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- CSCO +1
- 54 vs 55
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%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.65%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CSCO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.17%)
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
CSCO 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.52%, AIQ -1 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSCO's edge.
- 2AKAM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
CSCO leads on balance| Metric | AKAM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.4% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -24.7% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 56.4% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.8% | 24.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.5% | 27.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.97 | 0.59 |
Performance
CSCO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AKAM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.3% | -7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -24.3% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.6% | 19% |
| Year to date | 2.7% | 38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.8% | 54.5% |
Technicals
CSCO has the stronger structure| Metric | AKAM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.7 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.1 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -20.2% | 7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 56.2% | 30.9% |
Risk
CSCO is the more resilient| Metric | AKAM | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.44 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.67 |
| Max drawdown | -45.9% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -44.4% | -17.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 62% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.3% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AKAM or CSCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CSCO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against AKAM's 41. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 CSCO the better buy right now?
CSCO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CSCO over AKAM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CSCO leads Quality by 44 points; CSCO leads Momentum by 25 points; CSCO leads Risk Resilience by 25 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AKAM or CSCO?
Analyst price targets imply +79.2% upside for AKAM and +20.5% for CSCO, so the Street currently favors AKAM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CSCO. 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 CSCO?
AKAM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AKAM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 CSCO?
CSCO 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 CSCO?
CSCO on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, AKAM or CSCO?
CSCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSCO on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 CSCO?
CSCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 11.8% vs 24.3%; ttm roe 8.5% vs 27.4%.
Is CSCO's lead over AKAM getting stronger or weaker?
CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 13 to 18 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 CSCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AKAM closes the Quality gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSCO's edge; AKAM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AKAM and CSCO?
AKAM: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CSCO: 1 bullish / 1 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 AKAM is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CSCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AKAM and CSCO 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.