AVGO vs WSM Stock Comparison

WSM currently leads AVGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while AVGO has the stronger quality profile.

Market data as of Oct 31, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 9 points
AVGO
Technology
vs
WSM
Consumer Cyclical
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Price
$326
Day move
-5.48%
AIQ Score
50/100
Best edge
Quality
Sector
Technology
WSM
Williams-Sonoma, Inc.
Leads
Price
$253
Day move
-2.75%
AIQ Score
59/100
Best edge
Momentum
Sector
Consumer Cyclical

What is the main difference between AVGO and WSM?

WSM leads the current stock comparison as Williams-Sonoma, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Broadcom Inc. vs Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Data as of Oct 31, 2026· market close· Cross-sector · Technology vs Consumer Cyclical· Coverage 66/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictCompetitiveAIQ Comparison Conviction 5/10

WSM leads

WSM leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors AVGO on target upside.

Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support WSM, and its signal state is cleanly positive.

Evidence agreement: 3 of 6Comparison trend: Stable
AVGO

Broadcom Inc.

AIQ Score
50/100
AIQ Edge Score
5/10
WSM

Williams-Sonoma, Inc.

Leads
AIQ Score
59/100
AIQ Edge Score
8/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors WSM over AVGO, 59 versus 50 as of Oct 31, 2026. WSM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. WSM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AVGO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. WSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.

Compare Broadcom Inc. and Williams-Sonoma, Inc. 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
+574.6%
WSM
+195.6%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested

AVGO $67,459 · WSM $29,562

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 WSM 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
WSM advantage
  • Momentum32 vs 72
    WSM +40
  • Risk Resilience48 vs 53
    WSM +5
  • Quality85 vs 81
    AVGO +4
  • Value30 vs 30
    Even

3 of 6 evidence groups favor WSM. WSM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.

AVGO-2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -8

New signals

  • ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.86%)
WSM-1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2

New signals

  • 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)

WSM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.

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

The central trade-off

WSM (Williams-Sonoma, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.

AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 45.2% against 31.2%.

The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.

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

WSM

WSM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.

Growth

WSM

WSM on combined revenue and EPS growth.

Value

Even

The two are level on Value.

Momentum

WSM

WSM on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.

Lower downside

WSM

WSM on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.

Analyst upside

AVGO

AVGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.

AIQ vs Wall Street

The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors WSM, analyst targets favor AVGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.

MeasureAVGOWSMNote
Implied upside to target+55.3%-5.7%AVGO has more room
Target dispersion+49.4%+42.4%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusBuyHoldContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering1913Higher coverage generally improves confidence

The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.

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

Dividend growth

AVGO vs WSM: regular dividend growth
Dividend metricAVGOWSM
5Y dividend CAGR12.63%20.95%
2020 regular DPS$1.335$0.985
2025 regular DPS$2.420$2.550
Years increased55
No cut in windowYesYes
Cohort rank#55#13

WSM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 20.95% a year against AVGO's 12.63%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.

Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.

Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor WSM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreWSM50 vs 59
FundamentalsAVGOon balancerevenue growth 14.9% vs 8.5%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 47.2%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 57.8%; gross margin 67% vs 47.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 19.2% — AVGO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them
ValuationEvenValue 30 vs 30
TechnicalsWSMPrice vs 50-day -7.6% vs 6.9%; vs 200-day -11.3% vs 17.9%
Risk ResilienceWSMRisk Resilience 48 vs 53
Analyst expectationsAVGOTarget upside 55.3% vs -5.7%

✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and WSM and are excluded from the count.

AIQ Decision Stability

Competitive

The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.

  • The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
  • Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 WSM.

How the comparison changed

120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30

WSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.

Jul 1AVGO leads above the line · WSM leads belowOct 30
Today
WSM +9
50 vs 59
7 sessions ago
WSM +15
46 vs 61
30 sessions ago
WSM +7
55 vs 62
90 sessions ago
WSM +5
45 vs 50

The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when WSM 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.

AVGOConflicted

1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

Only AVGO

  • Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.21%)
  • ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.86%)
  • Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
WSM

5 bullish / 0 bearish

Only WSM

  • Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.27%)
  • EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
  • 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
  • Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon

Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.

AVGO is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.

Price vs model alignment

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

AVGOConfirmed weakness

Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -5.48%, AIQ -2 points).

WSMConfirmed weakness

Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.75%, 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.

  1. 1AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSM's edge.
  2. 2AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
  3. 3WSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
  4. 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
MetricAVGOWSM
Revenue growth (YoY)14.9%8.5%
EPS growth (YoY)26.5%47.2%
Gross margin67%47.2%
Operating margin43.7%19.2%
Return on equity (TTM)36.4%57.8%
Debt to equity0.740.71

Performance

WSM leads 5 of 6 windows
MetricAVGOWSM
1 week (5 sessions)1.4%0.1%
1 month (20 sessions)-8.2%8.8%
3 months (63 sessions)-16.9%5.4%
6 months (126 sessions)-22.6%38.4%
Year to date-5.8%41.5%
1 year (252 sessions)-10.9%29.3%

Technicals

WSM has the stronger structure
MetricAVGOWSM
RSI (14)37.362.1
ADX (14)23.721.7
Price vs 50-day-7.6%6.9%
Price vs 200-day-11.3%17.9%
Volatility (1M, annualized)45.2%31.2%

Risk

WSM is the more resilient
MetricAVGOWSM
Beta2.21.14
Sharpe ratio-0.170.78
Sortino ratio-0.241.51
Max drawdown-33.2%-23.6%
Current drawdown-32.3%-3.1%
Annualized volatility46.1%33.1%
Value at risk (95%)-4.5%-2.9%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which is better, AVGO or WSM?

On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, WSM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against AVGO's 50. The edge comes from momentum 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 WSM the better buy right now?

WSM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 WSM over AVGO?

The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WSM leads Momentum by 40 points; WSM leads Risk Resilience by 5 points; AVGO leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.

Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or WSM?

Analyst price targets imply +55.3% upside for AVGO and -5.7% for WSM, so the Street currently favors AVGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors WSM. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

Which is better value, AVGO or WSM?

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 WSM?

WSM 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 WSM?

WSM on the Momentum factor, by 40 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 WSM?

WSM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WSM on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 WSM?

The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67% vs 47.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 19.2%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 57.8%. AVGO leads on two measures and WSM 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 WSM's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?

WSM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when WSM moved ahead of AVGO.

What would change the AVGO vs WSM verdict?

The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to WSM's edge; AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; WSM's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 WSM?

AVGO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. WSM: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 WSM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).

Compare AVGO and WSM 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.