AVGO vs CRS Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and CRS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO and CRS?
AVGO leads the current stock comparison as Broadcom Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Carpenter Technology Corporation
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Carpenter Technology Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over CRS, 52 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CRS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. AVGO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Carpenter Technology Corporation 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 CRS 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.
- Quality85 vs 65AVGO +20
- Momentum39 vs 25AVGO +14
- Risk Resilience52 vs 61CRS +9
- Value30 vs 25AVGO +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CRS keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
AVGO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and CRS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CRS (Carpenter Technology Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
AVGOAVGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AVGOAVGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
AVGOAVGO on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
CRSCRS on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO 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 | AVGO | CRS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.4% | +19.4% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +48.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 5 | 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 AVGO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AVGO | 52 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | AVGO | revenue growth 14.9% vs 4.9%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 16.5%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 25.9%; gross margin 67% vs 30.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 22.5% |
| Valuation | AVGO | Value 30 vs 25 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -17.5%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 5.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CRS | Risk Resilience 52 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 39.4% vs 19.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and CRS 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 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)
- 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 AVGO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AVGO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVGO +10
- 52 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +6
- 47 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +1
- 45 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 4 when CRS 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.55%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (23.66%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.22%)
AVGO 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 +0.32%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.13%, 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.
- 1CRS closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2CRS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AVGO'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
AVGO leads on balance| Metric | AVGO | CRS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 4.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 16.5% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 22.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 25.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.31 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVGO | CRS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.3% | -15.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | -14.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 12% |
| Year to date | 4.3% | 42.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.9% | 80.4% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | CRS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 31.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 42.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -17.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 5.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 33.2% |
Risk
CRS is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | CRS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 1.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 2.7 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -27.6% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | -27.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.5% | 49.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or CRS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against CRS's 42. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CRS is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 CRS the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 AVGO over CRS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Quality by 20 points; AVGO leads Momentum by 14 points; CRS leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or CRS?
Analyst price targets imply +39.4% upside for AVGO and +19.4% for CRS, so the Street currently favors AVGO. 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, AVGO or CRS?
AVGO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AVGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 CRS?
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 CRS?
AVGO on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, AVGO or CRS?
CRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRS on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AVGO more profitable than CRS?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 30.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 22.5%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 25.9%.
Is AVGO's lead over CRS getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-04, when CRS moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs CRS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRS closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; CRS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; AVGO'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 AVGO and CRS?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRS: 1 bullish / 2 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 AVGO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and CRS 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.