NVDA vs MRVL Stock Comparison
NVDA currently leads MRVL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between NVDA and MRVL?
NVDA leads the current stock comparison as NVIDIA Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
NVIDIA Corporation vs Marvell Technology, Inc.
NVDA leads
NVDA leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NVDA, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
NVIDIA Corporation
Marvell Technology, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NVDA over MRVL, 55 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. NVDA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience. NVDA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NVDA today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. NVDA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions. NVDA 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 NVIDIA Corporation and Marvell Technology, 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 NVDA and MRVL 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.
- Quality97 vs 65NVDA +32
- Risk Resilience57 vs 36NVDA +21
- Value35 vs 25NVDA +10
- Momentum29 vs 22NVDA +7
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NVDA. NVDA’s edge is concentrated in quality 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 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 3 active signals are unchanged.
NVDA's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NVDA and MRVL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NVDA (NVIDIA Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
MRVL (Marvell Technology, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.9% against 23.5%.
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
NVDANVDA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
NVDANVDA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
NVDANVDA on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
NVDANVDA on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
NVDANVDA 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 | NVDA | MRVL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46.4% | +15.8% | NVDA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +93.9% | +114.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 29 | 29 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | NVDA | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 20.11% | 0.00% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.016 | $0.240 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.040 | $0.240 |
| Years increased | 2 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #14 | not ranked |
NVDA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 20.11% a year against MRVL's 0.00%. NVDA 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 NVDA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | NVDA | 55 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | NVDAon balance | revenue growth 17.9% vs 13.3%; EPS growth 2.9% vs 7.7%; TTM ROE 110.1% vs 16.2%; gross margin 74.7% vs 51.4%; operating margin 65.2% vs 16.7% — NVDA takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NVDA | Value 35 vs 25 |
| Technicals | MRVL | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs 35.5% |
| Risk Resilience | NVDA | Risk Resilience 57 vs 36 |
| Analyst expectations | NVDA | Target upside 46.4% vs 15.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NVDA and MRVL 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 17 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NVDA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20NVDA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NVDA +17
- 55 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- NVDA +15
- 57 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- NVDA +12
- 65 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- NVDA +16
- 69 vs 53
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MRVL
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.73%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
NVDA 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.54%, AIQ -1 points).
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).
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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDA's edge.
- 2MRVL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3NVDA'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
NVDA leads on balance| Metric | NVDA | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.9% | 13.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.9% | 7.7% |
| Gross margin | 74.7% | 51.4% |
| Operating margin | 65.2% | 16.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 110.1% | 16.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | 0.29 |
Performance
MRVL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NVDA | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.3% | -10.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | -8.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.1% | 13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.3% | 58.9% |
| Year to date | 16.1% | 182.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.1% | 172.5% |
Technicals
MRVL has the stronger structure| Metric | NVDA | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.5 | 38.5 |
| ADX (14) | 18 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | 35.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.5% | 54.9% |
Risk
NVDA is the more resilient| Metric | NVDA | MRVL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.94 | 3.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 1.6 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.92 | 2.76 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -48.4% |
| Current drawdown | -9.5% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.8% | 79.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -7.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NVDA or MRVL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NVDA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against MRVL's 38. 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 NVDA or MRVL the better buy right now?
NVDA 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 NVDA over MRVL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. NVDA leads Quality by 32 points; NVDA leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; NVDA leads Value by 10 points. NVDA 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, NVDA or MRVL?
Analyst price targets imply +46.4% upside for NVDA and +15.8% for MRVL, so the Street currently favors NVDA. 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, NVDA or MRVL?
NVDA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NVDA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 MRVL?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 MRVL?
NVDA on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, NVDA or MRVL?
NVDA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NVDA on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 NVDA more profitable than MRVL?
NVDA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 74.7% vs 51.4%; operating margin 65.2% vs 16.7%; ttm roe 110.1% vs 16.2%.
Is NVDA's lead over MRVL getting stronger or weaker?
NVDA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 17 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the NVDA vs MRVL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MRVL closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to NVDA's edge; MRVL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; NVDA'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 NVDA and MRVL?
NVDA: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MRVL: 1 bullish / 1 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 MRVL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NVDA and MRVL 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.