AVGO vs TMF Stock Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support AVGO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over TMF, 47 versus 44 as of Sep 5, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while TMF holds the stronger momentum profile. AVGO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AVGO and TMF 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.
- Quality30%85 vs 60AVGO +25
- Momentum25%20 vs 43TMF +23
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 31AVGO +21
- Value30%30 vs 36TMF +6
2 of 4 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; TMF keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.79%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
AVGO's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and TMF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
TMF (Direxion Daily 20+ Year Treasury Bull 3X ETF): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
TMFTMF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
TMFTMF on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AVGO | TMF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.1% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +36.3% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 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 | 47 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | TMF | Value 30 vs 36 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -6.8% vs -4.2%; vs 200-day -3.4% vs -14.4% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 31 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and TMF 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
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 · Apr 22 – Sep 3AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVGO +3
- 47 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +19
- 62 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when AVGO moved ahead of TMF.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.87%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.79%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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 +0.21%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.36%, 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.
- 1TMF closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2TMF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-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
Split| Metric | AVGO | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 67% | — |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | — |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVGO | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.1% | -1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | -12.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.3% | -22% |
| Year to date | 3.2% | -17.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.8% | -14.9% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.4 | 51.3 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 16.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.8% | -4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.4% | -14.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.2% | 30.6% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | TMF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.15 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | -0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.8% | -30.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.5% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or TMF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 47 against TMF's 44. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. TMF 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 TMF the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over TMF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AVGO leads Quality by 25 points; TMF leads Momentum by 23 points; AVGO leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or TMF?
Analyst price targets imply +40.1% upside for AVGO and not covered for TMF. 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 TMF?
TMF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TMF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 TMF?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 TMF?
TMF on the Momentum factor, by 23 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 TMF?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 21 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AVGO more profitable than TMF?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is AVGO's lead over TMF getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when AVGO moved ahead of TMF.
What would change the AVGO vs TMF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TMF closes the Quality gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; TMF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate AVGO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and TMF?
AVGO: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TMF: 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TMF it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.