PLTR vs CSCO Stock Comparison
PLTR currently leads CSCO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality, while CSCO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between PLTR and CSCO?
PLTR leads the current stock comparison as Palantir Technologies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Palantir Technologies Inc. vs Cisco Systems, Inc.
PLTR leads
PLTR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CSCO on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PLTR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Palantir Technologies Inc.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PLTR over CSCO, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. PLTR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CSCO holds the stronger value profile. PLTR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CSCO. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PLTR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PLTR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Palantir Technologies 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 PLTR 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.
- Value24 vs 53CSCO +29
- Quality97 vs 78PLTR +19
- Momentum61 vs 44PLTR +17
- Risk Resilience55 vs 59CSCO +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PLTR. PLTR’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CSCO keeps a meaningful value edge.
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, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
PLTR's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PLTR and CSCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PLTR (Palantir Technologies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CSCO (Cisco Systems, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
PLTRPLTR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PLTRPLTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CSCOCSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 points.
Momentum
PLTRPLTR on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
CSCOCSCO on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CSCOCSCO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PLTR, analyst targets favor CSCO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PLTR | CSCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -3.5% | +20.5% | CSCO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +95% | +30.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 13 | 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 PLTR. 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 | 60 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | PLTR | revenue growth 18.6% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 22.2% vs 15.3%; TTM ROE 37.5% vs 27.4%; gross margin 84.8% vs 64.5%; operating margin 42.8% vs 24.3% |
| Valuation | CSCO | Value 24 vs 53 |
| Technicals | PLTR | Price vs 50-day 10% vs -3.4%; vs 200-day 26% vs 7% |
| Risk Resilience | CSCO | Risk Resilience 55 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CSCO | Target upside -3.5% vs 20.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PLTR and CSCO 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 leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 PLTR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PLTR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PLTR +1
- 60 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- PLTR +3
- 65 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- PLTR +6
- 65 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- PLTR +11
- 66 vs 55
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when PLTR moved ahead of CSCO.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only PLTR
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.10%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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.
PLTR 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 +4.74%, 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.
- 1CSCO closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to PLTR's edge.
- 2CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PLTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PLTR's advantage entirely.
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
PLTR leads on balance| Metric | PLTR | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.2% | 15.3% |
| Gross margin | 84.8% | 64.5% |
| Operating margin | 42.8% | 24.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.5% | 27.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.59 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | PLTR | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -7.7% | -7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 54.6% | -4.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 31.9% | 19% |
| Year to date | 8.4% | 38.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.1% | 54.5% |
Technicals
PLTR has the stronger structure| Metric | PLTR | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.8 | 48.4 |
| ADX (14) | 28.7 | 21.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10% | -3.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 26% | 7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.2% | 30.9% |
Risk
CSCO is the more resilient| Metric | PLTR | CSCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.01 | 1.1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.36 | 1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.61 | 1.67 |
| Max drawdown | -48.2% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -7.9% | -17.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.8% | 35.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.1% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PLTR or CSCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PLTR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 60 against CSCO's 59. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CSCO is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 PLTR or CSCO the better buy right now?
PLTR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 PLTR over CSCO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CSCO leads Value by 29 points; PLTR leads Quality by 19 points; PLTR leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PLTR or CSCO?
Analyst price targets imply -3.5% upside for PLTR and +20.5% for CSCO, so the Street currently favors CSCO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PLTR. 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, PLTR or CSCO?
CSCO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSCO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 29 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, PLTR or CSCO?
PLTR 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, PLTR or CSCO?
PLTR on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, PLTR or CSCO?
CSCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSCO on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 PLTR more profitable than CSCO?
PLTR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 84.8% vs 64.5%; operating margin 42.8% vs 24.3%; ttm roe 37.5% vs 27.4%.
Is PLTR's lead over CSCO getting stronger or weaker?
PLTR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 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 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when PLTR moved ahead of CSCO.
What would change the PLTR vs CSCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSCO closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to PLTR's edge; CSCO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PLTR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PLTR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about PLTR and CSCO?
PLTR: 3 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 PLTR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CSCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PLTR 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.