AVGO vs IOVA Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and IOVA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO and IOVA?
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 Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from IOVA.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over IOVA, 52 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while IOVA holds the stronger momentum profile. AVGO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AVGO lead: Reversed — IOVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 12.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Iovance Biotherapeutics, 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 IOVA 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 30AVGO +55
- Momentum39 vs 51IOVA +12
- Value30 vs 34IOVA +4
- Risk Resilience52 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality; IOVA keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -15
No new signals fired.
AVGO's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and IOVA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
IOVA (Iovance Biotherapeutics, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 85.7% against 37.6%.
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
IOVAIOVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IOVAIOVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
IOVAIOVA on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO 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 | IOVA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.4% | -9% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +102.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
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 | AVGO | 52 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | IOVAon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 39%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 42.1%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs -40.5%; gross margin 67% vs 116.3%; operating margin 43.7% vs -92.7% — IOVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IOVA | Value 30 vs 34 |
| Technicals | IOVA | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs 39.8%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 102.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 39.4% vs -9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and IOVA 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 wide at 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 2 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 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 AVGO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AVGO lead: Reversed — IOVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 12.
- Today
- AVGO +12
- 52 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +1
- 47 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- IOVA +2
- 45 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- AVGO +6
- 50 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when AVGO moved ahead of IOVA.
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
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (53.00%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
AVGO 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +5.65%, 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.
- 1IOVA closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2IOVA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3AVGO'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
IOVA leads on balance| Metric | AVGO | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 39% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 42.1% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 116.3% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | -92.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | -40.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.06 |
Performance
IOVA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -5.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.3% | 20.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | 115.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 68.2% |
| Year to date | 4.3% | 198.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.9% | 242% |
Technicals
IOVA has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 38 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 50.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | 39.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 102.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 85.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AVGO | IOVA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 1.31 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 1.66 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 3.84 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -39% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | -9.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.5% | 100.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -6.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or IOVA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against IOVA's 40. The edge comes from quality. IOVA 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 AVGO or IOVA the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over IOVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Quality by 55 points; IOVA leads Momentum by 12 points; IOVA leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or IOVA?
Analyst price targets imply +39.4% upside for AVGO and -9% for IOVA, so the Street currently favors AVGO. 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 IOVA?
IOVA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IOVA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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 IOVA?
IOVA 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 IOVA?
IOVA on the Momentum factor, by 12 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 IOVA?
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 IOVA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67% vs 116.3%; operating margin 43.7% vs -92.7%; ttm roe 36.4% vs -40.5%. AVGO leads on two measures and IOVA 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 AVGO's lead over IOVA getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Reversed — IOVA led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 12. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when AVGO moved ahead of IOVA.
What would change the AVGO vs IOVA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IOVA closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; IOVA's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; AVGO'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 AVGO and IOVA?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. IOVA: 3 bullish / 1 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IOVA it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and IOVA 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.