CEVA vs HLIT Stock Comparison
HLIT currently leads CEVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 40. The clearest difference is value, while CEVA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CEVA and HLIT?
HLIT leads the current stock comparison as Harmonic Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CEVA, Inc. vs Harmonic Inc.
HLIT leads
HLIT leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CEVA.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HLIT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CEVA, Inc.
Harmonic Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLIT over CEVA, 54 versus 40 as of Oct 22, 2026. HLIT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while CEVA holds the stronger quality profile. HLIT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLIT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. HLIT lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLIT now leads by 14.
Compare CEVA, Inc. and Harmonic Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare CEVA and HLIT 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.
- Value35 vs 65HLIT +30
- Momentum22 vs 49HLIT +27
- Risk Resilience39 vs 56HLIT +17
- Quality59 vs 47CEVA +12
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HLIT. HLIT’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; CEVA 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.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
HLIT's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CEVA and HLIT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLIT (Harmonic Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
CEVA (CEVA, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 42.1%.
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
HLITHLIT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CEVACEVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
HLITHLIT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
HLITHLIT on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
HLITHLIT on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
HLITHLIT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CEVA | HLIT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.8% | +53.1% | HLIT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +24.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLIT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | HLIT | 40 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CEVAon balance | revenue growth 7.4% vs 9.7%; EPS growth 37.5% vs -128.6%; TTM ROE -3.4% vs -12.2%; gross margin 87.4% vs 50.7%; operating margin -8.3% vs 11.9% — CEVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | HLIT | Value 35 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CEVA | Price vs 50-day -2.6% vs -6.9%; vs 200-day -4.7% vs -4.2% |
| Risk Resilience | HLIT | Risk Resilience 39 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | HLIT | Target upside 49.8% vs 53.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CEVA and HLIT 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 HLIT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HLIT lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLIT now leads by 14.
- Today
- HLIT +14
- 40 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- HLIT +11
- 40 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- CEVA +5
- 54 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- HLIT +15
- 46 vs 61
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%)
- 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
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only HLIT
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.31%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
HLIT 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 -3.16%, 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 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLIT's edge.
- 2CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3HLIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
CEVA leads on balance| Metric | CEVA | HLIT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 9.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.5% | -128.6% |
| Gross margin | 87.4% | 50.7% |
| Operating margin | -8.3% | 11.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -3.4% | -12.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.36 |
Performance
HLIT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CEVA | HLIT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | 5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.4% | -1.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -27.9% | -7.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.1% | 2.4% |
| Year to date | 34.2% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.5% | 7.7% |
Technicals
CEVA has the stronger structure| Metric | CEVA | HLIT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.8 | 58.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 13.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.6% | -6.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.7% | -4.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 42.1% |
Risk
HLIT is the more resilient| Metric | CEVA | HLIT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.43 | 1.93 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.43 | 0.34 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.66 | 0.52 |
| Max drawdown | -47.6% | -41.5% |
| Current drawdown | -42.3% | -35.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.2% | 52.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CEVA or HLIT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLIT is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 54 against CEVA's 40. The edge comes from value and momentum. CEVA 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 CEVA or HLIT the better buy right now?
HLIT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLIT over CEVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLIT leads Value by 30 points; HLIT leads Momentum by 27 points; HLIT leads Risk Resilience by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CEVA or HLIT?
Analyst price targets imply +49.8% upside for CEVA and +53.1% for HLIT, so the Street currently favors HLIT. 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, CEVA or HLIT?
HLIT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. HLIT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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 HLIT?
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 HLIT?
HLIT on the Momentum factor, by 27 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 HLIT?
HLIT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLIT on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 HLIT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 87.4% vs 50.7%; operating margin -8.3% vs 11.9%; ttm roe -3.4% vs -12.2%. CEVA leads on two measures and HLIT 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 HLIT's lead over CEVA getting stronger or weaker?
HLIT lead: Reversed — CEVA led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLIT now leads by 14. 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 HLIT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CEVA closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLIT's edge; CEVA's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; HLIT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 HLIT?
CEVA: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HLIT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 HLIT it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CEVA and HLIT 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.