AMT vs AVGO Stock Comparison
Compare AMT and AVGO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMT and AVGO?
AMT leads the current stock comparison as American Tower Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Tower Corporation vs Broadcom Inc.
AMT leads
AMT leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AVGO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AMT, and its lead is narrowing.
American Tower Corporation
Broadcom Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMT over AVGO, 54 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. AMT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AVGO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Tower Corporation and Broadcom 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 AMT and AVGO 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.
- Quality70 vs 85AVGO +15
- Value45 vs 30AMT +15
- Momentum49 vs 39AMT +10
- Risk Resilience49 vs 52Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AMT. AMT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
AMT's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMT and AVGO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMT (American Tower Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.6% against 20.7%.
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
AMTAMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AMTAMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
AMTAMT on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
AMTAMT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AMT, analyst targets favor AVGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AMT | AVGO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.4% | +39.4% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.9% | +49.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 17 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 54 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | AMTon balance | EPS growth 1.6% vs 26.5%; TTM ROE 90.2% vs 36.4%; gross margin 73.2% vs 67%; operating margin 44.4% vs 43.7% — AMT takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AMT | Value 45 vs 30 |
| Technicals | AMT | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -2.6% vs -2.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 49 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 17.4% vs 39.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMT and AVGO 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 AMT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMT +2
- 54 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- AMT +10
- 57 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- AMT +10
- 55 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- AVGO +4
- 46 vs 50
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when AMT moved ahead of AVGO.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.55%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AVGO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.82%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.32%, 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.
- 1AVGO closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMT's edge.
- 2AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3AMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate AMT'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
AMT leads on balance| Metric | AMT | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | 14.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.6% | 26.5% |
| Gross margin | 73.2% | 67% |
| Operating margin | 44.4% | 43.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 90.2% | 36.4% |
| Debt to equity | 12.09 | 0.74 |
Performance
AVGO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMT | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.5% | -13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.1% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.4% | 5.6% |
| Year to date | -1.5% | 4.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.7% | 6.9% |
Technicals
AMT has the stronger structure| Metric | AMT | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 47.7 |
| ADX (14) | 9.5 | 23.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.6% | -2.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 37.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AMT | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.15 | 2.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | 0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | 0.44 |
| Max drawdown | -17.8% | -28.9% |
| Current drawdown | -12.3% | -25.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.3% | 47.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMT or AVGO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against AVGO's 52. The edge comes from value and momentum. AVGO 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 AMT or AVGO the better buy right now?
AMT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMT over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Quality by 15 points; AMT leads Value by 15 points; AMT leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMT or AVGO?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for AMT and +39.4% for AVGO, so the Street currently favors AVGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AMT. 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, AMT or AVGO?
AMT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, AMT or AVGO?
AVGO 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, AMT or AVGO?
AMT on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, AMT or AVGO?
AMT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMT carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AMT more profitable than AVGO?
AMT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 73.2% vs 67%; operating margin 44.4% vs 43.7%; ttm roe 90.2% vs 36.4%.
Is AMT's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when AMT moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AMT vs AVGO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMT's edge; AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; AMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate AMT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AMT and AVGO?
AMT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. AVGO: 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 AMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On AVGO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMT and AVGO 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.