AVGO vs UNG Stock Comparison
UNG currently leads AVGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum, while AVGO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AVGO and UNG?
UNG leads the current stock comparison as United States Natural Gas Fund LP, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs United States Natural Gas Fund LP
UNG leads
UNG leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 2 of 4 evidence groups support UNG, and its lead is widening.
Broadcom Inc.
United States Natural Gas Fund LP
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UNG over AVGO, 58 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. UNG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. UNG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor UNG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. UNG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and United States Natural Gas Fund LP 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 UNG 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.
- Momentum27 vs 57UNG +30
- Quality85 vs 67AVGO +18
- Risk Resilience53 vs 42AVGO +11
2 of 4 evidence groups favor UNG. UNG’s edge is concentrated in momentum; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +14
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
UNG's lead widened by 6 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and UNG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UNG (United States Natural Gas Fund LP): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience.
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
UNGUNG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UNGUNG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
UNGUNG on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | UNG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.9% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +49.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | — | 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 UNG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UNG | 49 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth 26.5% vs 74%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 14.3% |
| Valuation | Not covered | Not covered |
| Technicals | UNG | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs -5%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 53 vs 42 |
| 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 UNG 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 UNG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20UNG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UNG +9
- 49 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- UNG +5
- 52 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- UNG +5
- 53 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- AVGO +2
- 57 vs 55
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when UNG 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
Only AVGO
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
Only UNG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 6 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.05%, AIQ +6 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 Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge.
- 2AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
Split| Metric | AVGO | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 74% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 0% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 0% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 14.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVGO | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.7% | -0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -4.1% |
| Year to date | -3.4% | -14.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.6% | -9.3% |
Technicals
UNG has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 52.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | -6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.5% | 45.1% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | UNG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | -0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 0.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | 0.03 |
| Max drawdown | -31.7% | -43% |
| Current drawdown | -30.6% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.9% | 58.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or UNG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UNG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against AVGO's 49. The edge comes from momentum. 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 UNG the better buy right now?
UNG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 4 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 UNG over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UNG leads Momentum by 30 points; AVGO leads Quality by 18 points; AVGO leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or UNG?
Analyst price targets imply +48.9% upside for AVGO and not covered for UNG. 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 UNG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 UNG?
UNG 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 UNG?
UNG on the Momentum factor, by 30 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 UNG?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 UNG?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 0%; operating margin 43.7% vs 0%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 14.3%.
Is UNG's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
UNG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when UNG moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs UNG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to UNG's edge; AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; UNG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 UNG?
AVGO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. UNG: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on AVGO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On UNG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
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.