MRVL vs CSCO Stock Comparison
CSCO currently leads MRVL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 38. The clearest difference is value.
What is the main difference between MRVL and CSCO?
CSCO leads the current stock comparison as Cisco Systems, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Marvell Technology, Inc. vs Cisco Systems, Inc.
CSCO leads
CSCO leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CSCO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Marvell Technology, Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CSCO over MRVL, 59 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. CSCO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. CSCO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CSCO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 points over 30 sessions. CSCO 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 Marvell Technology, Inc. and Cisco 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 MRVL and CSCO 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.
- Value25 vs 53CSCO +28
- Risk Resilience36 vs 59CSCO +23
- Momentum22 vs 44CSCO +22
- Quality65 vs 78CSCO +13
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CSCO. CSCO’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
CSCO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MRVL and CSCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CSCO (Cisco Systems, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
MRVL (Marvell Technology, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.9% against 30.9%.
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
CSCOCSCO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CSCOCSCO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CSCOCSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
CSCOCSCO on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
CSCOCSCO on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
CSCOCSCO 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 | MRVL | CSCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +20.5% | CSCO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +114.6% | +30.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 29 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MRVL | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 0.00% | 2.65% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.240 | $1.430 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.240 | $1.630 |
| Years increased | 1 | 5 |
| No cut in window | No (1) | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #312 |
CSCO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 2.65% a year against MRVL's 0.00%. CSCO never reduced its regular dividend in the window; MRVL did in 1 year.
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 CSCO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CSCO | 38 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | CSCOon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 7.7% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 16.2% vs 27.4%; gross margin 51.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 16.7% vs 24.3% — CSCO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CSCO | Value 25 vs 53 |
| Technicals | MRVL | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 35.5% vs 7% |
| Risk Resilience | CSCO | Risk Resilience 36 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CSCO | Target upside 15.8% vs 20.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MRVL and CSCO 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 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CSCO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CSCO +21
- 38 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- CSCO +20
- 42 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- CSCO +6
- 53 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- CSCO +2
- 53 vs 55
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when CSCO 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MRVL
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.73%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
CSCO 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 +1.81%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.52%, AIQ -1 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 Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSCO's edge.
- 2MRVL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CSCO leads on balance| Metric | MRVL | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.7% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 51.4% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 16.7% | 24.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.2% | 27.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.29 | 0.59 |
Performance
MRVL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MRVL | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -10.5% | -7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.4% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.9% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 58.9% | 19% |
| Year to date | 182.9% | 38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 172.5% | 54.5% |
Technicals
MRVL has the stronger structure| Metric | MRVL | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.5 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 19.9 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 35.5% | 7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.9% | 30.9% |
Risk
CSCO is the more resilient| Metric | MRVL | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.15 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.6 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.76 | 1.67 |
| Max drawdown | -48.4% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -24% | -17.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 79.8% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MRVL or CSCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CSCO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against MRVL's 38. The edge comes from value 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 CSCO the better buy right now?
CSCO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 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 CSCO over MRVL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CSCO leads Value by 28 points; CSCO leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; CSCO leads Momentum by 22 points. CSCO leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MRVL 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, MRVL or CSCO?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for MRVL and +20.5% for CSCO, so the Street currently favors CSCO. 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, MRVL or CSCO?
CSCO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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, MRVL or CSCO?
CSCO 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 CSCO?
CSCO on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, MRVL or CSCO?
CSCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSCO on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 MRVL more profitable than CSCO?
CSCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 51.4% vs 64.5%; operating margin 16.7% vs 24.3%; ttm roe 16.2% vs 27.4%.
Is CSCO's lead over MRVL getting stronger or weaker?
CSCO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when CSCO moved ahead of MRVL.
What would change the MRVL vs CSCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRVL closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSCO's edge; MRVL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CSCO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 MRVL and CSCO?
MRVL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CSCO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CSCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MRVL and CSCO 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.