AVGO vs FANG Stock Comparison
FANG currently leads AVGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while AVGO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AVGO and FANG?
FANG leads the current stock comparison as Diamondback Energy, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Diamondback Energy, Inc.
FANG leads
FANG leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from AVGO. Wall Street currently favors AVGO on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FANG, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Broadcom Inc.
Diamondback Energy, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FANG over AVGO, 56 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. FANG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. FANG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AVGO. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FANG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. FANG lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 24 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 4.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Diamondback Energy, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare AVGO and FANG 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.
- Momentum40 vs 82FANG +42
- Quality85 vs 49AVGO +36
- Value30 vs 46FANG +16
- Risk Resilience51 vs 47AVGO +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FANG. FANG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 +16
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
FANG's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and FANG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FANG (Diamondback Energy, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 43% against 28.4%.
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
FANGFANG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FANGFANG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FANGFANG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
FANGFANG on the Momentum factor, by 42 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FANG, analyst targets favor AVGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | FANG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +55.3% | +8.9% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.4% | +21.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 14 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AVGO | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.63% | 21.67% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.335 | $1.500 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.420 | $4.000 |
| Years increased | 5 | 4 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #55 | not ranked |
FANG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 21.67% a year against AVGO's 12.63%. AVGO never reduced its regular dividend in the window; FANG did in 1 year. They are ranked in different cohorts — US dividend-paying corporations and variable-dividend payers — so their ranks are not comparable with each other.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FANG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FANG | 52 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 31.2%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 82.1%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 4.2%; gross margin 67% vs 44.5%; operating margin 43.7% vs 27.7% — AVGO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FANG | Value 30 vs 46 |
| Technicals | FANG | Price vs 50-day -7.9% vs 7.4%; vs 200-day -4.3% vs 9.1% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 51 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 55.3% vs 8.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and FANG 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 FANG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FANG lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 24 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 4.
- Today
- FANG +4
- 52 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- FANG +10
- 46 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +24
- 65 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- FANG +9
- 43 vs 52
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when FANG 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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only AVGO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.92%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only FANG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
AVGO 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.48%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.74%, 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.
- 1AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to FANG's edge.
- 2AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3FANG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 31.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 82.1% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 44.5% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 27.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 4.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.33 |
Performance
FANG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.1% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.2% | 12.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.3% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.2% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | 1.6% | 37.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.7% | 41.4% |
Technicals
FANG has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.6 | 68.8 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.9% | 7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.3% | 9.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43% | 28.4% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | FANG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | -0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 1.21 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.03 | 1.85 |
| Max drawdown | -33.2% | -19.5% |
| Current drawdown | -26.9% | -3.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 46% | 32.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or FANG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FANG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against AVGO's 52. The edge comes from momentum and value. AVGO 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 AVGO or FANG the better buy right now?
FANG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FANG over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FANG leads Momentum by 42 points; AVGO leads Quality by 36 points; FANG leads Value by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or FANG?
Analyst price targets imply +55.3% upside for AVGO and +8.9% for FANG, so the Street currently favors AVGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FANG. 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, AVGO or FANG?
FANG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FANG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 FANG?
FANG 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 FANG?
FANG on the Momentum factor, by 42 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 FANG?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 FANG?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 44.5%; operating margin 43.7% vs 27.7%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 4.2%.
Is FANG's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
FANG lead: Reversed — AVGO led by 24 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FANG now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when FANG moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs FANG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 42 points behind, the largest single contributor to FANG's edge; AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; FANG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 FANG?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. FANG: 4 bullish / 0 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 AVGO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FANG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and FANG 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.