AVGO vs MPWR Stock Comparison
AVGO currently leads MPWR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 42. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between AVGO and MPWR?
AVGO leads the current stock comparison as Broadcom Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from MPWR.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, and the lead recently changed hands.
Broadcom Inc.
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over MPWR, 49 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. AVGO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. AVGO lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 7. AVGO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Monolithic Power Systems, 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 MPWR 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.
- Momentum27 vs 17AVGO +10
- Quality85 vs 77AVGO +8
- Value30 vs 25AVGO +5
- Risk Resilience53 vs 49AVGO +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
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.
AVGO's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and MPWR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
MPWR (Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 45.8% against 36.5%.
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
MPWRMPWR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
AVGOAVGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
AVGOAVGO on the Momentum factor, by 10 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
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AVGO | MPWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +48.9% | +44.7% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.7% | +26.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | AVGO | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.63% | 25.55% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.335 | $2.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.420 | $6.240 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #55 | #3 |
MPWR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 25.55% a year against AVGO's 12.63%. 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
5 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 | 49 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 21.9%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 32.7%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 21.8%; gross margin 67% vs 55.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 28.7% — AVGO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | AVGO | Value 30 vs 25 |
| Technicals | MPWR | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs -1.4%; vs 200-day -9.1% vs -4.5% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 53 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 48.9% vs 44.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and MPWR 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.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20AVGO lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 7.
- Today
- AVGO +7
- 49 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +11
- 52 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- MPWR +8
- 53 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- MPWR +2
- 57 vs 59
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when AVGO moved ahead of MPWR.
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
Only MPWR
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.64%)
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 +1.03%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.77%, 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.
- 1MPWR closes the Momentum gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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 | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 21.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 32.7% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 55.2% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 28.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 21.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0 |
Performance
MPWR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.3% | -9.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.7% | -10.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -16.2% |
| Year to date | -3.4% | 37.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -5.6% | 23.2% |
Technicals
MPWR has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 41.8 | 40.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.4 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | -1.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9.1% | -4.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.5% | 45.8% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | MPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 2.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 0.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.07 | 0.93 |
| Max drawdown | -31.7% | -32.4% |
| Current drawdown | -30.6% | -26.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.9% | 54.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -5.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or MPWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against MPWR's 42. The edge comes from momentum and 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 MPWR the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over MPWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVGO leads Momentum by 10 points; AVGO leads Quality by 8 points; AVGO leads Value by 5 points. AVGO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MPWR simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or MPWR?
Analyst price targets imply +48.9% upside for AVGO and +44.7% for MPWR, so the Street currently favors AVGO. 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 MPWR?
AVGO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. AVGO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 MPWR?
MPWR 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 MPWR?
AVGO on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 MPWR?
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 MPWR?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 55.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 28.7%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 21.8%.
Is AVGO's lead over MPWR getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Reversed — MPWR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; AVGO now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when AVGO moved ahead of MPWR.
What would change the AVGO vs MPWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MPWR closes the Momentum gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; MPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and MPWR?
AVGO: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. MPWR: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on AVGO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MPWR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and MPWR 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.