AVGO vs MTH Stock Comparison

Compare AVGO vs MTH on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.

Market data as of Oct 22, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 0 points
AVGO
Technology
vs
MTH
Consumer Cyclical
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Price
$338
Day move
+1.03%
AIQ Score
49/100
Best edge
Quality
Sector
Technology
MTH
Meritage Homes Corporation
Price
$59.32
Day move
-1.51%
AIQ Score
49/100
Best edge
Value
Sector
Consumer Cyclical

What is the main difference between AVGO and MTH?

AVGO and MTH are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Broadcom Inc. vs Meritage Homes Corporation

Data as of Oct 22, 2026· market close· Cross-sector · Technology vs Consumer Cyclical· Coverage 66/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 1/10

AVGO and MTH are effectively level

AVGO and MTH are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.

Evidence agreement: 0 of 6Comparison trend: Stable
AVGO

Broadcom Inc.

AIQ Score
49/100
AIQ Edge Score
5/10
MTH

Meritage Homes Corporation

AIQ Score
49/100
AIQ Edge Score
4/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate AVGO and MTH as of Oct 22, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.

Compare Broadcom Inc. and Meritage Homes Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.

AVGO
+599.7%
MTH
+20.8%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

AVGO $69,967 · MTH $12,080

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 MTH against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

AVGO advantage
0
MTH advantage
  • Quality85 vs 39
    AVGO +46
  • Value30 vs 65
    MTH +35
  • Momentum27 vs 35
    MTH +8
  • Risk Resilience53 vs 59
    MTH +6

Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.

AVGO0 AIQ

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.

MTH+2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum +8

New signals

  • MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon

AVGO's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and MTH both carry a full feed there.

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

Even

Neither separates on the overall score.

Growth

MTH

MTH on combined revenue and EPS growth.

Value

MTH

MTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.

Momentum

MTH

MTH on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.

Lower downside

MTH

MTH on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.

Analyst upside

AVGO

AVGO 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.

MeasureAVGOMTHNote
Implied upside to target+48.9%+34.9%AVGO has more room
Target dispersion+49.7%+35%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusBuyBuyContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering184Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven49 vs 49
FundamentalsAVGOon balancerevenue growth 14.9% vs 31%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 67.1%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 6.4%; gross margin 67% vs 18.9%; operating margin 43.7% vs 8.4% — AVGO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them
ValuationMTHValue 30 vs 65
TechnicalsAVGOPrice vs 50-day -6.7% vs -9.8%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -13%
Risk ResilienceMTHRisk Resilience 53 vs 59
Analyst expectationsAVGOTarget upside 48.9% vs 34.9%

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20

AVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.

Jun 21AVGO leads above the line · MTH leads belowOct 20
Today
Level
49 vs 49
7 sessions ago
AVGO +5
52 vs 47
30 sessions ago
AVGO +2
53 vs 51
90 sessions ago
AVGO +5
57 vs 52

The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when AVGO moved ahead of MTH.

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.

AVGO

0 bullish / 3 bearish

Only AVGO

  • MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MTHConflicted

1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only MTH

  • ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.60%)
  • MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon

Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.

Price vs model alignment

Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.

AVGONo material change

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).

MTHDivergence

Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.51%, AIQ +2 points).

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
MetricAVGOMTH
Revenue growth (YoY)14.9%31%
EPS growth (YoY)26.5%67.1%
Gross margin67%18.9%
Operating margin43.7%8.4%
Return on equity (TTM)36.4%6.4%
Debt to equity0.740.37

Performance

AVGO leads 4 of 6 windows
MetricAVGOMTH
1 week (5 sessions)-6.4%3.4%
1 month (20 sessions)-8.3%-9.3%
3 months (63 sessions)-15.7%-16.7%
6 months (126 sessions)-16.4%-13.3%
Year to date-3.4%-8.5%
1 year (252 sessions)-5.6%-13.7%

Technicals

AVGO has the stronger structure
MetricAVGOMTH
RSI (14)41.842.2
ADX (14)21.426.1
Price vs 50-day-6.7%-9.8%
Price vs 200-day-9.1%-13%
Volatility (1M, annualized)36.5%35.2%

Risk

MTH is the more resilient
MetricAVGOMTH
Beta2.161.06
Sharpe ratio0.05-0.31
Sortino ratio0.07-0.6
Max drawdown-31.7%-32.1%
Current drawdown-30.6%-29.3%
Annualized volatility45.9%38.4%
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 has more analyst upside, AVGO or MTH?

Analyst price targets imply +48.9% upside for AVGO and +34.9% for MTH, so the Street currently favors AVGO. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

Which is better value, AVGO or MTH?

MTH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MTH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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 MTH?

MTH 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 MTH?

MTH on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 MTH?

MTH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MTH on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 MTH?

AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 18.9%; operating margin 43.7% vs 8.4%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 6.4%.

What do the current signals say about AVGO and MTH?

AVGO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. MTH: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 MTH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).

Compare AVGO and MTH 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.