NVDA vs CRM Stock Comparison
NVIDIA Corporation vs Salesforce, Inc.
CRM leads
CRM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from NVDA. Wall Street currently favors NVDA on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CRM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NVIDIA Corporation
Salesforce, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CRM over NVDA, 64 versus 63 as of Sep 2, 2026. CRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while NVDA holds the stronger quality profile. CRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NVDA. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CRM lead: Reversed — NVDA led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 1.
Compare NVIDIA Corporation and Salesforce, 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%99 vs 57NVDA +42
- Value30%36 vs 69CRM +33
- Momentum25%63 vs 81CRM +18
- Risk Resilience15%47 vs 39NVDA +8
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CRM. CRM’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; NVDA keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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.
CRM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVDA and CRM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CRM (Salesforce, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
NVDA (NVIDIA Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
CRMCRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
NVDANVDA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CRMCRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 points.
Momentum
CRMCRM on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
NVDANVDA on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
NVDANVDA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CRM, analyst targets favor NVDA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | NVDA | CRM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +45.5% | +2.6% | NVDA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +76.1% | +47.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 28 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CRM. 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 | 63 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | NVDAon balance | EPS growth 35.6% vs 16.8%; ROE 111.7% vs 14.9%; gross margin 74.1% vs 77.6%; operating margin 64% vs 21.9% — NVDA takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CRM | Value 36 vs 69 |
| Technicals | CRM | Price vs 50-day 8.3% vs 39.5%; vs 200-day 12.7% vs 27.6% |
| Risk Resilience | NVDA | Risk Resilience 47 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | NVDA | Target upside 45.5% vs 2.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NVDA and CRM 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 CRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1CRM lead: Reversed — NVDA led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 1.
- Today
- CRM +1
- 63 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 64 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDA +4
- 67 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- NVDA +8
- 56 vs 48
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when CRM moved ahead of NVDA.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.46%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.50%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CRM 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 +3.88%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.09%, 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.
- 1NVDA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge.
- 2NVDA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 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
NVDA leads on balance| Metric | NVDA | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 19.8% | -0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 35.6% | 16.8% |
| Gross margin | 74.1% | 77.6% |
| Operating margin | 64% | 21.9% |
| Return on equity | 111.7% | 14.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.07 | 1.22 |
Technicals
CRM has the stronger structure| Metric | NVDA | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.5 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | 39.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.7% | 27.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 46.2% | 66.4% |
Risk
NVDA is the more resilient| Metric | NVDA | CRM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.96 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.62 | 0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.05 | 0.3 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -43.6% |
| Current drawdown | -6.3% | -3.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.6% | 47.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NVDA or CRM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CRM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 64 against NVDA's 63. The edge comes from value and momentum. NVDA 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 NVDA or CRM the better buy right now?
CRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CRM over NVDA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. NVDA leads Quality by 42 points; CRM leads Value by 33 points; CRM leads Momentum by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NVDA or CRM?
Analyst price targets imply +45.5% upside for NVDA and +2.6% for CRM, so the Street currently favors NVDA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CRM. 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, NVDA or CRM?
CRM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CRM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 33 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, NVDA or CRM?
NVDA 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, NVDA or CRM?
CRM on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, NVDA or CRM?
NVDA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NVDA on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 NVDA more profitable than CRM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.1% vs 77.6%; operating margin 64% vs 21.9%; roe 111.7% vs 14.9%. NVDA leads on two measures and CRM 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.
Is CRM's lead over NVDA getting stronger or weaker?
CRM lead: Reversed — NVDA led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CRM now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when CRM moved ahead of NVDA.
What would change the NVDA vs CRM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVDA closes the Value gap — currently 33 points behind, the largest single contributor to CRM's edge; NVDA generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 3 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 NVDA and CRM?
NVDA: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CRM: 3 bullish / 3 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 NVDA is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CRM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NVDA and CRM 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.