COHU vs CRUS Stock Comparison
CRUS currently leads COHU in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 42. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between COHU and CRUS?
CRUS leads the current stock comparison as Cirrus Logic, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cohu, Inc. vs Cirrus Logic, Inc.
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CRUS, and its lead is widening.
Cohu, Inc.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over COHU, 60 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. CRUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cohu, Inc. and Cirrus Logic, 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 COHU and CRUS 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 73CRUS +32
- Risk Resilience43 vs 69CRUS +26
- Value59 vs 72CRUS +13
- Momentum23 vs 23Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CRUS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COHU and CRUS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
COHU (Cohu, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 62.1% against 31%.
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
CRUSCRUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COHUCOHU on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
CRUSCRUS 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 | CRUS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +58.5% | CRUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.2% | +39.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CRUS | 42 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | CRUSon balance | revenue growth 19.1% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 98.7% vs -5.6%; TTM ROE -4.9% vs 20.4%; gross margin 39.2% vs 52.8%; operating margin -6.4% vs 23% — CRUS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 59 vs 72 |
| Technicals | COHU | Price vs 50-day -4.7% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 14.2% vs -20.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 43 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CRUS | Target upside 14.5% vs 58.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COHU and CRUS and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 CRUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +18
- 42 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +16
- 43 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CRUS +12
- 56 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- CRUS +2
- 57 vs 59
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only COHU
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (25.64%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
Only CRUS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.68%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
COHU 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.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.15%, 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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2COHU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CRUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
CRUS leads on balance| Metric | COHU | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 19.1% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 98.7% | -5.6% |
| Gross margin | 39.2% | 52.8% |
| Operating margin | -6.4% | 23% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -4.9% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 0.08 |
Performance
COHU leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COHU | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -16% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.3% | -7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.1% | -20.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.9% | -34.7% |
| Year to date | 126.6% | -6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 136.7% | -10.1% |
Technicals
COHU has the stronger structure| Metric | COHU | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.5 | 30.1 |
| ADX (14) | 26.8 | 24.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.7% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.2% | -20.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 62.1% | 31% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | COHU | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.82 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.58 | -0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.36 | -0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -46.8% | -40.6% |
| Current drawdown | -28.6% | -38.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 69.1% | 36.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.6% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COHU or CRUS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against COHU's 42. The edge comes from quality 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 COHU or CRUS the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRUS over COHU?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Quality by 32 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 26 points; CRUS leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COHU or CRUS?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for COHU and +58.5% for CRUS, so the Street currently favors CRUS. 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 CRUS?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 CRUS?
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 CRUS?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 CRUS?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 COHU more profitable than CRUS?
CRUS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 39.2% vs 52.8%; operating margin -6.4% vs 23%; ttm roe -4.9% vs 20.4%.
Is CRUS's lead over COHU getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 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 COHU vs CRUS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COHU closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; COHU's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CRUS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CRUS?
COHU: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CRUS: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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 CRUS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare COHU and CRUS 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.