AVGO vs IWN Stock Comparison
IWN currently leads AVGO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 46. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while AVGO has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between AVGO and IWN?
IWN leads the current stock comparison as iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
IWN leads
IWN leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 4 evidence groups support IWN, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Broadcom Inc.
iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors IWN over AVGO, 60 versus 46 as of Nov 7, 2026. IWN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. IWN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF 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 IWN 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 Resilience41 vs 75IWN +34
- Momentum20 vs 53IWN +33
- Value30 vs 62IWN +32
- Quality85 vs 57AVGO +28
4 of 4 evidence groups favor IWN. IWN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Value +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
IWN's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and IWN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
IWN (iShares Russell 2000 Value ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 54.7% against 18.8%.
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
IWNIWN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
IWNIWN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
IWNIWN on the Momentum factor, by 33 points.
Lower downside
IWNIWN on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AVGO | IWN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +72.4% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +49.4% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 4 covered evidence groups favor IWN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | IWN | 46 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | IWN | Value 30 vs 62 |
| Technicals | IWN | Price vs 50-day -15.6% vs -1.9%; vs 200-day -19.2% vs 0.4% |
| Risk Resilience | IWN | Risk Resilience 41 vs 75 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and IWN 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 4 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 IWN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- IWN +14
- 46 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- IWN +12
- 50 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- IWN +6
- 52 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- IWN +14
- 47 vs 61
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 8 when IWN 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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only AVGO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.52%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.02%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only IWN
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.31%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.74%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.18%, 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge.
- 2AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3IWN'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
Split| Metric | AVGO | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | — |
| Gross margin | 67% | — |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | — |
Performance
IWN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.9% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -18.8% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.3% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -24.8% | 0.4% |
| Year to date | -12.9% | 16.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.6% | 19.1% |
Technicals
IWN has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 55.5 |
| ADX (14) | 27.7 | 19.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -15.6% | -1.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.2% | 0.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.7% | 18.8% |
Risk
IWN is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | IWN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.18 | 0.86 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.25 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.34 | 1.63 |
| Max drawdown | -39.5% | -8.7% |
| Current drawdown | -39% | -7.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.3% | 15.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or IWN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, IWN is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 60 against AVGO's 46. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. 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 IWN the better buy right now?
IWN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 4 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 IWN over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. IWN leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; IWN leads Momentum by 33 points; IWN leads Value by 32 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or IWN?
Analyst price targets imply +72.4% upside for AVGO and not covered for IWN. 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 IWN?
IWN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IWN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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 IWN?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 IWN?
IWN on the Momentum factor, by 33 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 IWN?
IWN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. IWN on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 IWN?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is IWN's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
IWN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-08, when IWN moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs IWN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to IWN's edge; AVGO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; IWN'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 IWN?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. IWN: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 IWN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.