COHU vs CRDO Stock Comparison
CRDO currently leads COHU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 44 vs 42. The clearest difference is quality, while COHU has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between COHU and CRDO?
CRDO leads the current stock comparison as Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cohu, Inc. vs Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
CRDO leads
CRDO leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CRDO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cohu, Inc.
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRDO over COHU, 44 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRDO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while COHU holds the stronger value profile. CRDO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRDO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CRDO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cohu, Inc. and Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 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 COHU and CRDO 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.
- Quality41 vs 87CRDO +46
- Value59 vs 25COHU +34
- Momentum23 vs 19COHU +4
- Risk Resilience43 vs 40Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CRDO. CRDO’s edge is concentrated in quality; COHU keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CRDO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COHU and CRDO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRDO (Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
COHU (Cohu, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
CRDOCRDO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COHUCOHU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COHUCOHU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
COHUCOHU on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
COHUCOHU carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CRDOCRDO 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 | COHU | CRDO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +49.9% | CRDO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.2% | +52.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRDO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 42 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | CRDOon balance | revenue growth 19.1% vs 7.4%; EPS growth 98.7% vs 7%; TTM ROE -4.9% vs 27.2%; gross margin 39.2% vs 67.1%; operating margin -6.4% vs 31.7% — CRDO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COHU | Value 59 vs 25 |
| Technicals | COHU | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -10.3%; vs 200-day 14.2% vs -5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 43 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | CRDO | Target upside 14.5% vs 49.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COHU and CRDO 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CRDO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRDO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRDO +2
- 42 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- CRDO +2
- 43 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- CRDO +2
- 56 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- CRDO +7
- 57 vs 64
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when CRDO moved ahead of COHU.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only COHU
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CRDO 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +4.84%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.28%, 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.
- 1COHU closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRDO's edge.
- 2COHU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CRDO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
CRDO leads on balance| Metric | COHU | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 19.1% | 7.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 98.7% | 7% |
| Gross margin | 39.2% | 67.1% |
| Operating margin | -6.4% | 31.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.9% | 27.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 0.01 |
Performance
COHU leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COHU | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16% | -13.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.3% | -10.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.1% | -24.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.9% | -6.4% |
| Year to date | 126.6% | 19.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 136.7% | 25.6% |
Technicals
COHU has the stronger structure| Metric | COHU | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.5 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 16.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -10.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.2% | -5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.1% | 75.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COHU | CRDO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.82 | 3.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.58 | 0.62 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.36 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -46.8% | -53.6% |
| Current drawdown | -28.6% | -43.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.1% | 95.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -8.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COHU or CRDO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRDO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 44 against COHU's 42. The edge comes from quality. COHU is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 COHU or CRDO the better buy right now?
CRDO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRDO over COHU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRDO leads Quality by 46 points; COHU leads Value by 34 points; COHU leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COHU or CRDO?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for COHU and +49.9% for CRDO, so the Street currently favors CRDO. 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, COHU or CRDO?
COHU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COHU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, COHU or CRDO?
COHU 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, COHU or CRDO?
COHU on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, COHU or CRDO?
COHU is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COHU carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is COHU more profitable than CRDO?
CRDO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.2% vs 67.1%; operating margin -6.4% vs 31.7%; ttm roe -4.9% vs 27.2%.
Is CRDO's lead over COHU getting stronger or weaker?
CRDO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when CRDO moved ahead of COHU.
What would change the COHU vs CRDO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COHU closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRDO's edge; COHU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CRDO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 COHU and CRDO?
COHU: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRDO: 1 bullish / 1 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 COHU is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRDO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare COHU and CRDO 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.