AS vs AVGO Stock Comparison
AS currently leads AVGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum, while AVGO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AS and AVGO?
AS leads the current stock comparison as Amer Sports, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amer Sports, Inc. vs Broadcom Inc.
AS leads
AS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from AVGO.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AS, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amer Sports, Inc.
Broadcom Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AS over AVGO, 54 versus 49 as of Oct 22, 2026. AS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. AS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. AS lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AS now leads by 5.
Compare Amer Sports, Inc. and Broadcom 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 AS 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.
- Momentum73 vs 27AS +46
- Quality63 vs 85AVGO +22
- Risk Resilience49 vs 53AVGO +4
- Value30 vs 30Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AS. AS’s edge is concentrated in momentum; AVGO 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: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 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 3 active signals are unchanged.
AS's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AS and AVGO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AS (Amer Sports, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 36.5% against 28.7%.
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
ASAS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ASAS on the Momentum factor, by 46 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
ASAS 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 | AS | AVGO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +54.5% | +48.9% | AS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.8% | +49.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 18 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AS | 54 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | AVGO | revenue growth -16.1% vs 14.9%; EPS growth -37.9% vs 26.5%; TTM ROE 8.7% vs 36.4%; gross margin 59.8% vs 67%; operating margin 12.4% vs 43.7% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 30 vs 30 |
| Technicals | AS | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -6.7%; vs 200-day -11% vs -9.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 49 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AS | Target upside 54.5% vs 48.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AS 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AS lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AS now leads by 5.
- Today
- AS +5
- 54 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AS +1
- 53 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +9
- 44 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- AVGO +18
- 39 vs 57
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when AS 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.
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only AVGO
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Death Cross Active.
AS 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.41%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.03%, 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.
- 1AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to AS's edge.
- 2AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
AVGO leads on balance| Metric | AS | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -16.1% | 14.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -37.9% | 26.5% |
| Gross margin | 59.8% | 67% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 43.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.7% | 36.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.16 | 0.74 |
Performance
AS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AS | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | -6.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.6% | -8.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.8% | -15.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.2% | -16.4% |
| Year to date | -18.8% | -3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | -5.6% |
Technicals
AS has the stronger structure| Metric | AS | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 77.7 | 41.8 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 21.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11% | -9.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.7% | 36.5% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AS | AVGO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 2.16 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 0.05 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.1 | 0.07 |
| Max drawdown | -37.4% | -31.7% |
| Current drawdown | -27.8% | -30.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 39.7% | 45.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -4.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AS or AVGO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against AVGO's 49. The edge comes from 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 AS or AVGO the better buy right now?
AS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AS over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AS leads Momentum by 46 points; AVGO leads Quality by 22 points; AVGO leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AS or AVGO?
Analyst price targets imply +54.5% upside for AS and +48.9% for AVGO, so the Street currently favors AS. 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, AS or AVGO?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AS 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, AS or AVGO?
AS on the Momentum factor, by 46 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, AS or AVGO?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 AS more profitable than AVGO?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 59.8% vs 67%; operating margin 12.4% vs 43.7%; ttm roe 8.7% vs 36.4%.
Is AS's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
AS lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AS now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when AS moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AS vs AVGO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to AS's edge; AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 AS and AVGO?
AS: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. AVGO: 0 bullish / 3 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 AS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On AVGO it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AS 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.