META vs ANET Stock Comparison
META currently leads ANET in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 48. The clearest difference is momentum, while ANET has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between META and ANET?
META leads the current stock comparison as Meta Platforms, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Meta Platforms, Inc. vs Arista Networks, Inc.
META leads
META leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors ANET on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support META, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Meta Platforms, Inc.
Arista Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors META over ANET, 52 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. META's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ANET holds the stronger quality profile. META also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ANET. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor META today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. META lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Meta Platforms, Inc. and Arista Networks, 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 META and ANET 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.
- Momentum37 vs 22META +15
- Quality83 vs 89ANET +6
- Value32 vs 26META +6
- Risk Resilience58 vs 53META +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor META. META’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ANET keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.54%)
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.
META's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — META and ANET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
META (Meta Platforms, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
METAMETA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ANETANET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
METAMETA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
METAMETA on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
METAMETA on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ANETANET on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors META, analyst targets favor ANET. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | META | ANET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.5% | +17.3% | ANET has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.7% | +57.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 21 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor META. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | META | 52 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | ANETon balance | revenue growth 8% vs 12.1%; EPS growth -41.1% vs 18.5%; TTM ROE 29.7% vs 30.8%; gross margin 81.7% vs 63%; operating margin 38.1% vs 43.1% — ANET takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | META | Value 32 vs 26 |
| Technicals | META | Price vs 50-day 5.8% vs -7%; vs 200-day 9.8% vs 11.1% |
| Risk Resilience | META | Risk Resilience 58 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | ANET | Target upside 14.5% vs 17.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of META and ANET 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)
- 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 META.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20META lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- META +4
- 52 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- META +5
- 54 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- META +4
- 65 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +9
- 53 vs 62
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when META moved ahead of ANET.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only META
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ANET
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
META 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 +0.47%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.73%, 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.
- 1ANET closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge.
- 2ANET's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
ANET leads on balance| Metric | META | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8% | 12.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -41.1% | 18.5% |
| Gross margin | 81.7% | 63% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 43.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 29.7% | 30.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | META | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9% | -11.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.7% | -11.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.7% | 3.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.8% | 4.8% |
| Year to date | 5.2% | 38.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -2.5% | 24.4% |
Technicals
META has the stronger structure| Metric | META | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.8 | 34.3 |
| ADX (14) | 30.4 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.8% | -7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.8% | 11.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 40.5% |
Risk
META is the more resilient| Metric | META | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 2.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.04 | 0.64 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.06 | 0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.7% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.1% | 53.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, META or ANET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, META is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 52 against ANET's 48. The edge comes from momentum and value. ANET 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 META or ANET the better buy right now?
META carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 META over ANET?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. META leads Momentum by 15 points; ANET leads Quality by 6 points; META leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, META or ANET?
Analyst price targets imply +14.5% upside for META and +17.3% for ANET, so the Street currently favors ANET. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors META. 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, META or ANET?
META is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. META on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, META or ANET?
ANET 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, META or ANET?
META on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, META or ANET?
META is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. META on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 META more profitable than ANET?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 81.7% vs 63%; operating margin 38.1% vs 43.1%; ttm roe 29.7% vs 30.8%. META leads on one measure and ANET on two measures, 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.
Is META's lead over ANET getting stronger or weaker?
META lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when META moved ahead of ANET.
What would change the META vs ANET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ANET closes the Momentum gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to META's edge; ANET's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; META's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 META and ANET?
META: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ANET: 1 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 META is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ANET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare META and ANET 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.