CEVA vs ERIC Stock Comparison
ERIC currently leads CEVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 40. The clearest difference is momentum.
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 momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CEVA, Inc. vs Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
ERIC leads
ERIC leads by 25 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CEVA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ERIC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CEVA, Inc.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ERIC over CEVA, 65 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. ERIC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. 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 lead has swung materially session to session. ERIC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 25 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
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 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.
- Momentum22 vs 72ERIC +50
- Value35 vs 70ERIC +35
- Risk Resilience39 vs 46ERIC +7
- Quality59 vs 64ERIC +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ERIC. ERIC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ERIC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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 momentum and value.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
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 most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
ERICERIC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
ERICERIC on the Momentum factor, by 50 points.
Lower downside
ERICERIC on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 | +49.8% | -13.7% | 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 | 40 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 7.4% vs 7.9%; EPS growth 37.5% vs 36.8%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs 18.1%; gross margin 87.4% vs 48%; operating margin -8.3% vs 14.4% |
| Valuation | ERIC | Value 35 vs 70 |
| Technicals | ERIC | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs 4.9%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | ERIC | Risk Resilience 39 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | CEVA | Target upside 49.8% vs -13.7% |
✓ 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 25 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ERIC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ERIC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 25 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ERIC +25
- 40 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- ERIC +28
- 40 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- ERIC +4
- 54 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- ERIC +16
- 46 vs 62
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CEVA
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.92%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.98%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ERIC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.74%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short 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 +3.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.07%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge.
- 2CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 7.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | 36.8% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 48% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | 14.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | 18.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.41 |
Performance
ERIC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 9.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | 12.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | -7.9% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.5% | 12.3% |
Technicals
ERIC has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 74.9 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 23.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | 4.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 50% |
Risk
ERIC is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | ERIC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.43 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.52 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -33.4% |
| Current drawdown | -42.3% | -22.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.2% | 35.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -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 Oct 22, 2026, scoring 65 against CEVA's 40. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 Oct 22, 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, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ERIC leads Momentum by 50 points; ERIC leads Value by 35 points; ERIC leads Risk Resilience by 7 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 +49.8% upside for CEVA and -13.7% 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 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, CEVA or ERIC?
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, CEVA or ERIC?
ERIC on the Momentum factor, by 50 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, 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 7 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 CEVA more profitable than ERIC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 48%; operating margin -8.3% vs 14.4%; ttm roe -3.4% vs 18.1%. 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 25 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. 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 Momentum gap — currently 50 points behind, the largest single contributor to ERIC's edge; CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ERIC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 CEVA and ERIC?
CEVA: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ERIC: 2 bullish / 3 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 CEVA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ERIC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and ERIC 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.