APH vs CRUS Stock Comparison
CRUS currently leads APH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while APH has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between APH and CRUS?
CRUS leads the current stock comparison as Cirrus Logic, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amphenol Corporation vs Cirrus Logic, Inc.
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors APH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CRUS.
Amphenol Corporation
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over APH, 60 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while APH holds the stronger momentum profile. CRUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors APH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amphenol Corporation and Cirrus Logic, 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 APH and CRUS 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.
- Value43 vs 72CRUS +29
- Risk Resilience57 vs 69CRUS +12
- Momentum34 vs 23APH +11
- Quality66 vs 73CRUS +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; APH keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CRUS'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 CRUS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
APH (Amphenol Corporation): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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
CRUSCRUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
APHAPH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
APHAPH on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
APHAPH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRUS, analyst targets favor APH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | APH | CRUS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +108.8% | +58.5% | APH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +70.1% | +39.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 3 | 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 CRUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRUS | 50 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | APHon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 89.5% vs -5.6%; TTM ROE 37.2% vs 20.4%; gross margin 38.5% vs 52.8%; operating margin 27.2% vs 23% — APH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 43 vs 72 |
| Technicals | APH | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 5.5% vs -20.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 57 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | APH | Target upside 108.8% vs 58.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of APH and CRUS 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 10 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 CRUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +10
- 50 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +8
- 51 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CRUS +10
- 58 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- APH +1
- 60 vs 59
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when CRUS moved ahead of APH.
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
Only APH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.19%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish
Only CRUS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.68%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
APH 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.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.15%, 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.
- 1APH closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2APH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CRUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 89.5% | -5.6% |
| Gross margin | 38.5% | 52.8% |
| Operating margin | 27.2% | 23% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.2% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.21 | 0.08 |
Performance
APH leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | APH | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.6% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.2% | -7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.7% | -20.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.4% | -34.7% |
| Year to date | 17.4% | -6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | -10.1% |
Technicals
APH has the stronger structure| Metric | APH | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.1 | 30.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 24.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.5% | -20.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.9% | 31% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | APH | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.83 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.66 | -0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.91 | -0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -28.3% | -40.6% |
| Current drawdown | -10.5% | -38.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.8% | 36.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, APH or CRUS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against APH's 50. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. APH is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CRUS the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRUS over APH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Value by 29 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; APH leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, APH or CRUS?
Analyst price targets imply +108.8% upside for APH and +58.5% for CRUS, so the Street currently favors APH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRUS. 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, APH or CRUS?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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 CRUS?
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 CRUS?
APH on the Momentum factor, by 11 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 CRUS?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 CRUS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.5% vs 52.8%; operating margin 27.2% vs 23%; ttm roe 37.2% vs 20.4%. APH leads on two measures and CRUS on one measure, 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 CRUS's lead over APH getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 10 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when CRUS moved ahead of APH.
What would change the APH vs CRUS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: APH closes the Value gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; APH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CRUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CRUS?
APH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRUS: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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 CRUS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare APH and CRUS 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.