MRVL vs ANET Stock Comparison
Marvell Technology, Inc. vs Arista Networks, Inc.
ANET leads
ANET leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors MRVL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ANET, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marvell Technology, Inc.
Arista Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ANET over MRVL, 57 versus 44 as of Sep 2, 2026. ANET's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. ANET also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MRVL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ANET today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ANET lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Marvell Technology, Inc. and Arista Networks, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%65 vs 89ANET +24
- Risk Resilience15%36 vs 50ANET +14
- Momentum25%46 vs 59ANET +13
- Value30%24 vs 26Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ANET. ANET’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
ANET's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MRVL and ANET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
MRVL (Marvell Technology, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 91% against 49.9%.
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
ANETANET on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ANETANET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ANETANET on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
MRVLMRVL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ANET, analyst targets favor MRVL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MRVL | ANET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.2% | +15.9% | MRVL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +116% | +58.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 27 | 12 | 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 ANET. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ANET | 44 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | ANET | revenue growth 9% vs 12.1%; EPS growth -91.7% vs 18.5%; ROE 16.8% vs 30.8%; gross margin 50.6% vs 63%; operating margin 16.2% vs 43.1% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 26 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9.1% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day 41.8% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 36 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | MRVL | Target upside 17.2% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MRVL 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 ANET.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1ANET lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ANET +13
- 44 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- ANET +7
- 52 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- ANET +13
- 48 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +10
- 44 vs 54
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 21 when ANET moved ahead of MRVL.
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 (51.80%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.13%)
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.06%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
ANET 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 -2.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2.34%, 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.
- 1MRVL closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge.
- 2MRVL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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
ANET leads on balance| Metric | MRVL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9% | 12.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -91.7% | 18.5% |
| Gross margin | 50.6% | 63% |
| Operating margin | 16.2% | 43.1% |
| Return on equity | 16.8% | 30.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0 |
Technicals
Split| Metric | MRVL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.8 | 48.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.7 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.1% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 41.8% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 91% | 49.9% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | MRVL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.08 | 2.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.6 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.54 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -48.4% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -33.1% | -7% |
| Annualized volatility | 81% | 54.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MRVL or ANET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ANET is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 57 against MRVL's 44. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 MRVL or ANET the better buy right now?
ANET carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 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 ANET over MRVL?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ANET leads Quality by 24 points; ANET leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; ANET leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MRVL or ANET?
Analyst price targets imply +17.2% upside for MRVL and +15.9% for ANET, so the Street currently favors MRVL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ANET. 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, MRVL or ANET?
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, MRVL 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, MRVL or ANET?
ANET on the Momentum factor, by 13 points. 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, MRVL or ANET?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 14 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MRVL more profitable than ANET?
ANET leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.6% vs 63%; operating margin 16.2% vs 43.1%; roe 16.8% vs 30.8%.
Is ANET's lead over MRVL getting stronger or weaker?
ANET lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-21, when ANET moved ahead of MRVL.
What would change the MRVL vs ANET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRVL closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to ANET's edge; MRVL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; ANET's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 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 MRVL and ANET?
MRVL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. ANET: 3 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 MRVL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ANET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MRVL and ANET 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.