AVGO vs FORM Stock Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs FormFactor, Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors FORM on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
FormFactor, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over FORM, 47 versus 40 as of Sep 5, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. AVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FORM. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and FormFactor, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare AVGO and FORM 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.
- Quality30%85 vs 61AVGO +24
- Momentum25%20 vs 17Even
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 54Even
- Value30%30 vs 31Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
AVGO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and FORM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
FORM (FormFactor, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 74.7% against 36.2%.
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
AVGOAVGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FORMFORM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FORMFORM on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AVGO, analyst targets favor FORM. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | FORM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40.1% | +45.5% | FORM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +36.3% | +37.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 6 | 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
3 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 | 47 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 14.2%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 176.9%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 11%; gross margin 67% vs 45.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 16.9% — AVGO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 30 vs 31 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -6.8% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -3.4% vs -4.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | FORM | Target upside 40.1% vs 45.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and FORM 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4AVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVGO +7
- 47 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +1
- 45 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +8
- 64 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- FORM +3
- 50 vs 53
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when AVGO moved ahead of FORM.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.87%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.79%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.97%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +7.38%, 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.
- 1FORM closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2FORM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | FORM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 14.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 176.9% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 45.6% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 16.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 11% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.03 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | AVGO | FORM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | -12.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.1% | -16% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.7% | -23.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7.3% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | 3.2% | 73.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.8% | 240.3% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | FORM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.4 | 19.6 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 18.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.8% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.4% | -4.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.2% | 74.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | AVGO | FORM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.15 | 2.96 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.51 | 1.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | 2.94 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -47.8% |
| Current drawdown | -25.8% | -39.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.5% | 85.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -7.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or FORM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 47 against FORM's 40. The edge comes from quality. 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 FORM the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over FORM?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AVGO leads Quality by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or FORM?
Analyst price targets imply +40.1% upside for AVGO and +45.5% for FORM, so the Street currently favors FORM. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AVGO. 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 FORM?
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, AVGO or FORM?
FORM 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 FORM?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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 FORM?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is AVGO more profitable than FORM?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 45.6%; operating margin 43.7% vs 16.9%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 11%.
Is AVGO's lead over FORM getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-27, when AVGO moved ahead of FORM.
What would change the AVGO vs FORM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FORM closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; FORM's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and FORM?
AVGO: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FORM: 2 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 FORM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and FORM with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.