APH vs CRDO Stock Comparison
APH currently leads CRDO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 44. The clearest difference is value, while CRDO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between APH and CRDO?
APH leads the current stock comparison as Amphenol Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amphenol Corporation vs Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
APH leads
APH leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 6 of 6 evidence groups support APH, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amphenol Corporation
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors APH over CRDO, 50 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. APH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CRDO holds the stronger quality profile. APH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APH today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. APH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amphenol Corporation and Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 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 APH and CRDO 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.
- Quality66 vs 87CRDO +21
- Value43 vs 25APH +18
- Risk Resilience57 vs 40APH +17
- Momentum34 vs 19APH +15
6 of 6 evidence groups favor APH. APH’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CRDO keeps a meaningful quality 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 -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
APH's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — APH and CRDO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
APH (Amphenol Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CRDO (Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 75.4% against 25.9%.
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
APHAPH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APHAPH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
APHAPH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 points.
Momentum
APHAPH on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
APHAPH on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
APHAPH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | APH | CRDO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +108.8% | +49.9% | APH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +70.1% | +52.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor APH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | APH | 50 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | APHon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 7.4%; EPS growth 89.5% vs 7%; TTM ROE 37.2% vs 27.2%; gross margin 38.5% vs 67.1%; operating margin 27.2% vs 31.7% — APH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | APH | Value 43 vs 25 |
| Technicals | APH | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -10.3%; vs 200-day 5.5% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | APH | Risk Resilience 57 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | APH | Target upside 108.8% vs 49.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APH and CRDO 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 moderate at 6 points.
- 6 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)
- 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 APH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20APH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- APH +6
- 50 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- APH +6
- 51 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- CRDO +4
- 60 vs 64
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when APH moved ahead of CRDO.
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, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CRDO
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.59%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
APH 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 -0.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.28%, 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.
- 1CRDO closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to APH's edge.
- 2CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3APH'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
APH leads on balance| Metric | APH | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 7.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 89.5% | 7% |
| Gross margin | 38.5% | 67.1% |
| Operating margin | 27.2% | 31.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.2% | 27.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.21 | 0.01 |
Performance
APH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | APH | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | -13.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.2% | -10.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.7% | -24.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.4% | -6.4% |
| Year to date | 17.4% | 19.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 25.6% |
Technicals
APH has the stronger structure| Metric | APH | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.1 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 16.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -10.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.5% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.9% | 75.4% |
Risk
APH is the more resilient| Metric | APH | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.83 | 3.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -28.3% | -53.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.5% | -43.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.8% | 95.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APH or CRDO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, APH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against CRDO's 44. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CRDO 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 APH or CRDO the better buy right now?
APH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 6 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 APH over CRDO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRDO leads Quality by 21 points; APH leads Value by 18 points; APH leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APH or CRDO?
Analyst price targets imply +108.8% upside for APH and +49.9% for CRDO, so the Street currently favors APH. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, APH or CRDO?
APH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. APH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 18 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, APH or CRDO?
APH 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, APH or CRDO?
APH on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, APH or CRDO?
APH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. APH on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 APH more profitable than CRDO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.5% vs 67.1%; operating margin 27.2% vs 31.7%; ttm roe 37.2% vs 27.2%. APH leads on one measure and CRDO on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is APH's lead over CRDO getting stronger or weaker?
APH lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when APH moved ahead of CRDO.
What would change the APH vs CRDO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRDO closes the Value gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to APH's edge; CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; APH'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 APH and CRDO?
APH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRDO: 1 bullish / 1 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 APH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRDO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare APH and CRDO 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.