CRDO vs CRUS Stock Comparison
CRUS currently leads CRDO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 44. The clearest difference is value, while CRDO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CRDO and CRUS?
CRUS leads the current stock comparison as Cirrus Logic, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd vs Cirrus Logic, Inc.
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRUS, and its lead is widening.
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over CRDO, 60 versus 44 as of Oct 21, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CRDO holds the stronger quality profile. CRUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd 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 CRDO 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.
- Value25 vs 72CRUS +47
- Risk Resilience40 vs 69CRUS +29
- Quality87 vs 73CRDO +14
- Momentum19 vs 23CRUS +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CRDO 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
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 — CRDO and CRUS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CRDO (Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 75.4% 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
CRDOCRDO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 47 points.
Momentum
CRUSCRUS on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 | CRDO | CRUS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +49.9% | +58.5% | CRUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.7% | +39.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 3 | 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 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 | 44 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | CRDO | revenue growth 7.4% vs 2.5%; EPS growth 7% vs -5.6%; TTM ROE 27.2% vs 20.4%; gross margin 67.1% vs 52.8%; operating margin 31.7% vs 23% |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 25 vs 72 |
| Technicals | CRDO | Price vs 50-day -10.3% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day -5% vs -20.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 40 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | CRUS | Target upside 49.9% vs 58.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRDO 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 16 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)
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 10 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +16
- 44 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +14
- 45 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- CRUS +10
- 58 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- CRDO +5
- 64 vs 59
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when CRUS moved ahead of CRDO.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CRDO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.55%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.59%)
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.
CRDO 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 +6.28%, 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.
- 1CRDO closes the Value gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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
CRDO leads on balance| Metric | CRDO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 2.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7% | -5.6% |
| Gross margin | 67.1% | 52.8% |
| Operating margin | 31.7% | 23% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 27.2% | 20.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 0.08 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CRDO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -13.5% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.9% | -7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -24.9% | -20.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.4% | -34.7% |
| Year to date | 19.2% | -6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.6% | -10.1% |
Technicals
CRDO has the stronger structure| Metric | CRDO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.7 | 30.1 |
| ADX (14) | 16.4 | 24.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.3% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5% | -20.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 75.4% | 31% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | CRDO | CRUS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.35 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | -0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | -0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -53.6% | -40.6% |
| Current drawdown | -43.3% | -38.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 95.1% | 36.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -8.9% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRDO or CRUS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against CRDO's 44. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CRDO 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 CRDO or CRUS the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 CRDO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Value by 47 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 29 points; CRDO leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRDO or CRUS?
Analyst price targets imply +49.9% upside for CRDO 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, CRDO or CRUS?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 47 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, CRDO or CRUS?
CRDO 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, CRDO or CRUS?
CRUS 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, CRDO or CRUS?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 29 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 CRDO more profitable than CRUS?
CRDO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67.1% vs 52.8%; operating margin 31.7% vs 23%; ttm roe 27.2% vs 20.4%.
Is CRUS's lead over CRDO getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 16 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when CRUS moved ahead of CRDO.
What would change the CRDO vs CRUS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRDO closes the Value gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; CRDO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum 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 CRDO and CRUS?
CRDO: 1 bullish / 1 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 CRDO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRUS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRDO 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.