ORCL vs ANET Stock Comparison
Oracle Corporation vs Arista Networks, Inc.
ORCL leads
ORCL leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ORCL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Oracle Corporation
Arista Networks, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ORCL over ANET, 59 versus 57 as of Sep 2, 2026. ORCL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while ANET holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ORCL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ORCL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. ORCL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Oracle Corporation 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.
- Value30%61 vs 26ORCL +35
- Risk Resilience15%29 vs 50ANET +21
- Quality30%70 vs 89ANET +19
- Momentum25%60 vs 59Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ORCL. ORCL’s edge is concentrated in value; ANET keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
ORCL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ORCL and ANET both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ORCL (Oracle Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
ANET (Arista Networks, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 49.9% against 41.5%.
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
ORCLORCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ANETANET on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ORCLORCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
ANETANET on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
ORCLORCL 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 | ORCL | ANET | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +65.7% | +15.9% | ORCL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +95.8% | +58.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ORCL. 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 | 59 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 11.6% vs 12.1%; EPS growth 14.8% vs 18.5%; ROE 50.6% vs 30.8%; gross margin 65.8% vs 63%; operating margin 30.8% vs 43.1% |
| Valuation | ORCL | Value 61 vs 26 |
| Technicals | ANET | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs 2.1%; vs 200-day -12.4% vs 29.8% |
| Risk Resilience | ANET | Risk Resilience 29 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | ORCL | Target upside 65.7% vs 15.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ORCL 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 ORCL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1ORCL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ORCL +2
- 59 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- ANET +1
- 58 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- ORCL +1
- 62 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- ANET +9
- 45 vs 54
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when ORCL moved ahead of ANET.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.86%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.22%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
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
ORCL 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 +2.52%, 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.
- 1ANET closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ORCL's edge.
- 2ANET's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it.
- 3ORCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
Split| Metric | ORCL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.6% | 12.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 14.8% | 18.5% |
| Gross margin | 65.8% | 63% |
| Operating margin | 30.8% | 43.1% |
| Return on equity | 50.6% | 30.8% |
| Debt to equity | 3.67 | 0 |
Technicals
ANET has the stronger structure| Metric | ORCL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 48.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.4 | 22.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | 2.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.4% | 29.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.5% | 49.9% |
Risk
ANET is the more resilient| Metric | ORCL | ANET |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.02 | 2.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.45 | 0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | 1.32 |
| Max drawdown | -65% | -28.3% |
| Current drawdown | -54.6% | -7% |
| Annualized volatility | 67.5% | 54.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.8% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ORCL or ANET?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ORCL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 59 against ANET's 57. The edge comes from value. ANET is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 ORCL or ANET the better buy right now?
ORCL 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ORCL over ANET?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. ORCL leads Value by 35 points; ANET leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; ANET leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ORCL or ANET?
Analyst price targets imply +65.7% upside for ORCL and +15.9% for ANET, so the Street currently favors ORCL. 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, ORCL or ANET?
ORCL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ORCL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 35 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, ORCL 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, ORCL or ANET?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, ORCL or ANET?
ANET is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ANET on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 ORCL more profitable than ANET?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 65.8% vs 63%; operating margin 30.8% vs 43.1%; roe 50.6% vs 30.8%. ORCL leads on two measures and ANET 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 ORCL's lead over ANET getting stronger or weaker?
ORCL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when ORCL moved ahead of ANET.
What would change the ORCL vs ANET verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ANET closes the Value gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to ORCL's edge; ANET's Beta Spike Warning resolves — a bearish risk rule currently active against it; ORCL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 ORCL and ANET?
ORCL: 1 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 ORCL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On ANET it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ORCL 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.