AVGO vs CDE Stock Comparison
AVGO currently leads CDE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while CDE has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AVGO and CDE?
AVGO leads the current stock comparison as Broadcom Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Coeur Mining, Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CDE on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, and its lead is narrowing.
Broadcom Inc.
Coeur Mining, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over CDE, 49 versus 47 as of Oct 21, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CDE holds the stronger value profile. AVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CDE. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Coeur Mining, 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 AVGO and CDE 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.
- Quality85 vs 64AVGO +21
- Value30 vs 45CDE +15
- Momentum27 vs 24Even
- Risk Resilience53 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality; CDE 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, 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.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
AVGO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and CDE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CDE (Coeur Mining, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.3% against 36.5%.
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
AVGOAVGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CDECDE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CDECDE on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AVGO, analyst targets favor CDE. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | CDE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.9% | +56% | CDE has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.7% | +40.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO. 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 | 49 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 26.8%; EPS growth 26.5% vs -69.2%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 12.5%; gross margin 67% vs 50.4%; operating margin 43.7% vs 35% — AVGO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CDE | Value 30 vs 45 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs -20.3%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -21% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | CDE | Target upside 48.9% vs 56% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and CDE 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 2 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 AVGO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVGO +2
- 49 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +6
- 52 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- CDE +4
- 57 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when CDE 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 / 3 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CDE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.59%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CDE 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 +1.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, 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.
- 1CDE closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AVGO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate AVGO'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
AVGO leads on balance| Metric | AVGO | CDE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 26.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | -69.2% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 50.4% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 35% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.07 |
Performance
AVGO leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | CDE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -26.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.7% | -4.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -18% |
| Year to date | -3.4% | -15.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.6% | -32.6% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | CDE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 26 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | -20.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | -21% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.5% | 47.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AVGO | CDE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 2.97 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | -0.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -31.7% | -47.9% |
| Current drawdown | -30.6% | -44.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.9% | 73.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -7.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or CDE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against CDE's 47. The edge comes from quality. CDE 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 AVGO or CDE the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 AVGO over CDE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Quality by 21 points; CDE leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or CDE?
Analyst price targets imply +48.9% upside for AVGO and +56% for CDE, so the Street currently favors CDE. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AVGO. 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, AVGO or CDE?
CDE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CDE 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, AVGO or CDE?
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, AVGO or CDE?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AVGO or CDE?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO 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 AVGO more profitable than CDE?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 50.4%; operating margin 43.7% vs 35%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 12.5%.
Is AVGO's lead over CDE getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 2 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when CDE moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs CDE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CDE closes the Quality gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; CDE's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AVGO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate AVGO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and CDE?
AVGO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. CDE: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 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 AVGO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CDE it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and CDE 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.