AVGO vs JBL Stock Comparison
AVGO currently leads JBL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while JBL has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AVGO and JBL?
AVGO leads the current stock comparison as Broadcom Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Jabil Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors JBL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO.
Broadcom Inc.
Jabil Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over JBL, 49 versus 46 as of Oct 21, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while JBL holds the stronger value profile. AVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Jabil Inc. 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 AVGO and JBL 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.
- Quality85 vs 44AVGO +41
- Value30 vs 65JBL +35
- Risk Resilience53 vs 39AVGO +14
- Momentum27 vs 29Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; JBL keeps a meaningful value edge.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
JBL (Jabil Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.4% against 36.5%.
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 most heavily.
Growth
AVGOAVGO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBLJBL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
JBLJBL 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 JBL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | JBL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.9% | +52.6% | JBL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.7% | +24.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 8 | 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 | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.63% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.335 | $0.320 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.420 | $0.320 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #55 | #349 |
AVGO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.63% a year against JBL's 0.00%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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 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 | Even | 49 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 5.7%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 24.9%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 62.4%; gross margin 67% vs 9.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 4.3% — AVGO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBL | Value 30 vs 65 |
| Technicals | AVGO | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 53 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | JBL | Target upside 48.9% vs 52.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and JBL 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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.
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.
- 1JBL closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2JBL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3AVGO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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 | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 24.9% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 9.2% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 4.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 62.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 2.94 |
Performance
JBL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -12.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -10.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.7% | -12.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -13.7% |
| Year to date | -3.4% | 21.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.6% | 32.6% |
Technicals
AVGO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | JBL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 45.4 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 15.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | -8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.5% | 55.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or JBL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against JBL's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. JBL is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 JBL the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over JBL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Quality by 41 points; JBL leads Value by 35 points; AVGO leads Risk Resilience by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or JBL?
Analyst price targets imply +48.9% upside for AVGO and +52.6% for JBL, so the Street currently favors JBL. 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 JBL?
JBL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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 JBL?
AVGO 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 JBL?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 JBL?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 JBL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67% vs 9.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 4.3%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 62.4%. AVGO leads on two measures and JBL on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
What would change the AVGO vs JBL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBL closes the Quality gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; JBL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; AVGO starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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.
Compare AVGO and JBL 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.