AVGO vs CRUS Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and CRUS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO 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
Broadcom Inc. vs Cirrus Logic, Inc.
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRUS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over AVGO, 65 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. CRUS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Cirrus Logic, 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 AVGO 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.
- Value30 vs 72CRUS +42
- Risk Resilience52 vs 69CRUS +17
- Quality85 vs 73AVGO +12
- Momentum39 vs 45CRUS +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; 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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +17
No new signals fired.
CRUS's lead widened by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO 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.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 37.6% against 31.1%.
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
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 42 points.
Momentum
CRUSCRUS on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
CRUSCRUS 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 | AVGO | CRUS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.4% | +47.6% | CRUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +39.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 52 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | AVGO | revenue growth 14.9% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 26.5% vs -5.6%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 20.4%; gross margin 67% vs 52.8%; operating margin 43.7% vs 23% |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 30 vs 72 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -6.7%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs -16.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CRUS | Target upside 39.4% vs 47.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and CRUS 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +13
- 52 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +15
- 47 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- CRUS +14
- 45 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- CRUS +10
- 50 vs 60
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when CRUS 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.55%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.93%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
CRUS 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.32%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.98%, AIQ +4 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 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 | AVGO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | -5.6% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 52.8% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 23% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.08 |
Performance
AVGO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.3% | -4.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | -26.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | -14% |
| Year to date | 4.3% | -1.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.9% | -0.8% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 49.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 46.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -6.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | -16.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 31.1% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 1.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 0.11 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -39.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | -34.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.5% | 36.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or CRUS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against AVGO's 52. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 AVGO or CRUS the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 CRUS over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Value by 42 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; AVGO leads Quality by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or CRUS?
Analyst price targets imply +39.4% upside for AVGO and +47.6% for CRUS, so the Street currently favors CRUS. 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, AVGO or CRUS?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 42 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 CRUS?
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 CRUS?
CRUS on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, AVGO or CRUS?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS 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 AVGO more profitable than CRUS?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 52.8%; operating margin 43.7% vs 23%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 20.4%.
Is CRUS's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when CRUS moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs CRUS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Value gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 AVGO and CRUS?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRUS: 1 bullish / 3 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 AVGO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRUS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO 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.