CEVA vs ERIC Stock Comparison
Compare CEVA and ERIC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CEVA and ERIC?
ERIC leads the current stock comparison as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ), with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CEVA, Inc. vs Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
ERIC leads
ERIC leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors CEVA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ERIC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CEVA, Inc.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ERIC over CEVA, 62 versus 41 as of Sep 6, 2026. ERIC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. ERIC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CEVA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ERIC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ERIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions. ERIC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare CEVA, Inc. and Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) 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 CEVA and ERIC 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.
- Value30%35 vs 72ERIC +37
- Risk Resilience15%39 vs 61ERIC +22
- Momentum25%26 vs 40ERIC +14
- Quality30%59 vs 70ERIC +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ERIC. ERIC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ERIC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CEVA and ERIC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ERIC (Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 85.6% against 19.3%.
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
ERICERIC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CEVACEVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ERICERIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 points.
Momentum
ERICERIC on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
ERICERIC on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
CEVACEVA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ERIC, analyst targets favor CEVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CEVA | ERIC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +65.6% | -23% | CEVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Sell | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 1 | Higher 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ERIC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ERIC | 41 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | CEVAon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 37.5% vs 3.5%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 23.6%; gross margin 87.4% vs 48.1%; operating margin -8.3% vs 13.8% — CEVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ERIC | Value 35 vs 72 |
| Technicals | ERIC | Price vs 50-day -23.3% vs -1.3%; vs 200-day -6% vs -7.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ERIC | Risk Resilience 39 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | CEVA | Target upside 65.6% vs -23% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CEVA and ERIC 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 ERIC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5ERIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ERIC +21
- 41 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- ERIC +21
- 41 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- ERIC +20
- 45 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- ERIC +11
- 46 vs 57
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (22.46%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.13%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.17%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ERIC 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.93%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.3%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1CEVA closes the Value gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge.
- 2CEVA's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
CEVA leads on balance| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 3.5% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 48.1% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | 13.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 23.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.38 |
Performance
ERIC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -30.3% | -0.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.2% | -19.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 40.9% | -9.3% |
| Year to date | 25.2% | 4.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.8% | 28.7% |
Technicals
ERIC has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.1 | 47.4 |
| ADX (14) | 31.9 | 9.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.3% | -1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6% | -7.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 85.6% | 19.3% |
Risk
ERIC is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.46 | 0.91 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.57 | 0.71 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -32.2% |
| Current drawdown | -46.2% | -26.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.4% | 39.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CEVA or ERIC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ERIC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 62 against CEVA's 41. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 CEVA or ERIC the better buy right now?
ERIC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 ERIC over CEVA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ERIC leads Value by 37 points; ERIC leads Risk Resilience by 22 points; ERIC leads Momentum by 14 points. ERIC leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CEVA simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CEVA or ERIC?
Analyst price targets imply +65.6% upside for CEVA and -23% for ERIC, so the Street currently favors CEVA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ERIC. 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, CEVA or ERIC?
ERIC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ERIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 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, CEVA or ERIC?
CEVA 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, CEVA or ERIC?
ERIC on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, CEVA or ERIC?
ERIC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ERIC on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 CEVA more profitable than ERIC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 48.1%; operating margin -8.3% vs 13.8%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 23.6%. CEVA leads on one measure and ERIC on two measures, 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 ERIC's lead over CEVA getting stronger or weaker?
ERIC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CEVA vs ERIC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEVA closes the Value gap — currently 37 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge; CEVA's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CEVA and ERIC?
CEVA: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. ERIC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 CEVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ERIC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and ERIC with others
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.