CRUS vs DIOD Stock Comparison
CRUS currently leads DIOD in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 65 vs 44. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between CRUS and DIOD?
CRUS leads the current stock comparison as Cirrus Logic, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cirrus Logic, Inc. vs Diodes Incorporated
CRUS leads
CRUS leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DIOD on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CRUS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
Diodes Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRUS over DIOD, 65 versus 44 as of Oct 31, 2026. CRUS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. CRUS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DIOD. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRUS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 21 points over 30 sessions. CRUS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Cirrus Logic, Inc. and Diodes Incorporated 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 CRUS and DIOD 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.
- Risk Resilience70 vs 42CRUS +28
- Value72 vs 46CRUS +26
- Quality73 vs 48CRUS +25
- Momentum44 vs 40CRUS +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CRUS. CRUS’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CRUS's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRUS and DIOD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
DIOD (Diodes Incorporated): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 64.3% against 31.6%.
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
CRUSCRUS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DIODDIOD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRUSCRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
CRUSCRUS on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
DIODDIOD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRUS, analyst targets favor DIOD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRUS | DIOD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +59.7% | +73.8% | DIOD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.9% | +58.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 3 | 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
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 | 65 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | CRUSon balance | revenue growth 2.5% vs 9.9%; EPS growth -5.6% vs 209.1%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs 4.5%; gross margin 52.8% vs 31.7%; operating margin 23% vs 4.8% — CRUS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRUS | Value 72 vs 46 |
| Technicals | DIOD | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -12.7%; vs 200-day -18.6% vs 1.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 70 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | DIOD | Target upside 59.7% vs 73.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRUS and DIOD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 CRUS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CRUS +21
- 65 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- CRUS +21
- 60 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- CRUS +5
- 59 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CRUS +16
- 60 vs 44
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CRUS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.49%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DIOD
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.71%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.21%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CRUS 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -3.42%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -8.76%, 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.
- 1DIOD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge.
- 2DIOD's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
CRUS leads on balance| Metric | CRUS | DIOD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | 9.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.6% | 209.1% |
| Gross margin | 52.8% | 31.7% |
| Operating margin | 23% | 4.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | 4.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | 0.04 |
Performance
DIOD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CRUS | DIOD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.2% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -7.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.2% | 8.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -28.1% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | -4.6% | 81% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -13.4% | 56.5% |
Technicals
DIOD has the stronger structure| Metric | CRUS | DIOD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.7 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 20.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -12.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.6% | 1.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.6% | 64.3% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | CRUS | DIOD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.96 | 2.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.43 | 0.97 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.61 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -40.6% | -38% |
| Current drawdown | -36.8% | -27.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 67.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -6.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRUS or DIOD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRUS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 65 against DIOD's 44. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 CRUS or DIOD the better buy right now?
CRUS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRUS over DIOD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; CRUS leads Value by 26 points; CRUS leads Quality by 25 points. CRUS leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by DIOD simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CRUS or DIOD?
Analyst price targets imply +59.7% upside for CRUS and +73.8% for DIOD, so the Street currently favors DIOD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRUS. 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, CRUS or DIOD?
CRUS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRUS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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, CRUS or DIOD?
DIOD 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, CRUS or DIOD?
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, CRUS or DIOD?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 CRUS more profitable than DIOD?
CRUS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.8% vs 31.7%; operating margin 23% vs 4.8%; ttm roe 20.4% vs 4.5%.
Is CRUS's lead over DIOD getting stronger or weaker?
CRUS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CRUS vs DIOD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DIOD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRUS's edge; DIOD's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CRUS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 CRUS and DIOD?
CRUS: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. DIOD: 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 CRUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DIOD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRUS and DIOD 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.