CRUS vs QCOM Stock Comparison
Compare CRUS and QCOM across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRUS and QCOM?
QCOM leads the current stock comparison as QUALCOMM Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cirrus Logic, Inc. vs QUALCOMM Incorporated
QCOM leads
QCOM leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CRUS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support QCOM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
QUALCOMM Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QCOM over CRUS, 74 versus 65 as of Sep 11, 2026. QCOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CRUS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QCOM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CRUS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QCOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cirrus Logic, Inc. and QUALCOMM Incorporated 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 CRUS and QCOM 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.
- Momentum45 vs 85QCOM +40
- Risk Resilience69 vs 51CRUS +18
- Quality73 vs 83QCOM +10
- Value72 vs 69Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor QCOM. QCOM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CRUS 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 +17
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
QCOM's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRUS and QCOM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QCOM (QUALCOMM Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CRUS (Cirrus Logic, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.1% against 25.8%.
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
QCOMQCOM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRUSCRUS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
QCOMQCOM on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
CRUSCRUS on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
CRUSCRUS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors QCOM, analyst targets favor CRUS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CRUS | QCOM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.6% | +11.6% | CRUS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.9% | +137.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 20 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QCOM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QCOM | 65 vs 74 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 2.5% vs -6.2%; EPS growth -5.6% vs -72.7%; TTM ROE 20.4% vs 37.3%; gross margin 52.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 23% vs 23.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 69 |
| Technicals | QCOM | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs 7.9%; vs 200-day -16.8% vs 5.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CRUS | Risk Resilience 69 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CRUS | Target upside 47.6% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRUS and QCOM 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 moderate at 9 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 QCOM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QCOM +9
- 65 vs 74
- 7 sessions ago
- QCOM +7
- 62 vs 69
- 30 sessions ago
- QCOM +6
- 59 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- CRUS +4
- 60 vs 56
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when QCOM moved ahead of CRUS.
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.93%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.35%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
QCOM 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 up over the latest session (price +1.98%, AIQ +4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.88%, 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.
- 1CRUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge.
- 2CRUS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QCOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split| Metric | CRUS | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.5% | -6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.6% | -72.7% |
| Gross margin | 52.8% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | 23% | 23.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20.4% | 37.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.08 | 0.55 |
Performance
QCOM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CRUS | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3% | 4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.4% | 8.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.2% | -7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14% | 31.9% |
| Year to date | -1.7% | 3.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.8% | 10.4% |
Technicals
QCOM has the stronger structure| Metric | CRUS | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.1 | 75 |
| ADX (14) | 46.2 | 18.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | 7.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.8% | 5.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.1% | 25.8% |
Risk
CRUS is the more resilient| Metric | CRUS | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.19 | 2.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.08 | 0.39 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.11 | 0.57 |
| Max drawdown | -39.4% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -34.9% | -29.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.8% | 51.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRUS or QCOM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QCOM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 74 against CRUS's 65. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CRUS 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 CRUS or QCOM the better buy right now?
QCOM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QCOM over CRUS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QCOM leads Momentum by 40 points; CRUS leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; QCOM leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRUS or QCOM?
Analyst price targets imply +47.6% upside for CRUS and +11.6% for QCOM, so the Street currently favors CRUS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors QCOM. 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 QCOM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 QCOM?
CRUS 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 QCOM?
QCOM on the Momentum factor, by 40 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 QCOM?
CRUS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CRUS on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 QCOM?
QCOM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 23% vs 23.2%; ttm roe 20.4% vs 37.3%.
Is QCOM's lead over CRUS getting stronger or weaker?
QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 9 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when QCOM moved ahead of CRUS.
What would change the CRUS vs QCOM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRUS closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge; CRUS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QCOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 QCOM?
CRUS: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. QCOM: 4 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 CRUS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On QCOM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CRUS and QCOM 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.