AVGO vs CHTR Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and CHTR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO and CHTR?
CHTR leads the current stock comparison as Charter Communications, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Charter Communications, Inc.
CHTR leads
CHTR leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AVGO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CHTR, and its lead is widening.
Broadcom Inc.
Charter Communications, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHTR over AVGO, 58 versus 47 as of Sep 6, 2026. CHTR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. CHTR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AVGO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHTR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CHTR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Charter Communications, Inc. 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 AVGO and CHTR 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%30 vs 75CHTR +45
- Momentum25%20 vs 59CHTR +39
- Quality30%85 vs 56AVGO +29
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 24AVGO +29
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CHTR. CHTR’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
CHTR's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and CHTR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHTR (Charter Communications, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
CHTRCHTR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHTRCHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 points.
Momentum
CHTRCHTR on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 29 points.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CHTR, analyst targets favor AVGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | CHTR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41% | +16.3% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +157.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 8 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHTR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHTR | 47 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | AVGO | EPS growth 26.5% vs 16.1%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 30.4%; gross margin 67% vs 56.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 23.7% |
| Valuation | CHTR | Value 30 vs 75 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 6.1%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs -16.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 53 vs 24 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 41% vs 16.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and CHTR 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 moderate at 11 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CHTR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CHTR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHTR +11
- 47 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CHTR +8
- 47 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- CHTR +4
- 58 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- CHTR +7
- 47 vs 54
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 14 when CHTR 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.74%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.64%)
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (27.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.00%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.4%, 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.
- 1AVGO closes the Value gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHTR's edge.
- 2AVGO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CHTR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
AVGO leads on balance| Metric | AVGO | CHTR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | -0.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 16.1% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 56.6% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 23.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 30.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 5.7 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVGO | CHTR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.3% | -0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | 15% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.3% | -34.6% |
| Year to date | 3.4% | -27.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.4% | -41.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AVGO | CHTR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.2 | 56.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.7 | 16 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | -16.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.2% | 60.5% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | CHTR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.15 | 0.29 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | -0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.73 | -1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -56.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.7% | -46.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.4% | 50.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or CHTR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHTR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against AVGO's 47. The edge comes from value and 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 CHTR the better buy right now?
CHTR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHTR over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CHTR leads Value by 45 points; CHTR leads Momentum by 39 points; AVGO leads Quality by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or CHTR?
Analyst price targets imply +41% upside for AVGO and +16.3% for CHTR, so the Street currently favors AVGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CHTR. 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 CHTR?
CHTR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 45 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, AVGO or CHTR?
AVGO 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 CHTR?
CHTR on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, AVGO or CHTR?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 AVGO more profitable than CHTR?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 56.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 23.7%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 30.4%.
Is CHTR's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
CHTR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-14, when CHTR moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs CHTR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Value gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHTR's edge; AVGO's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CHTR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 AVGO and CHTR?
AVGO: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHTR: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CHTR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and CHTR 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.