QCOM vs TXN Stock Comparison
QCOM currently leads TXN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 57. The clearest difference is value, while TXN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between QCOM and TXN?
QCOM leads the current stock comparison as QUALCOMM Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
QUALCOMM Incorporated vs Texas Instruments Incorporated
QCOM leads
QCOM leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support QCOM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Texas Instruments Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QCOM over TXN, 64 versus 57 as of Oct 21, 2026. QCOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while TXN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. QCOM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QCOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare QUALCOMM Incorporated and Texas Instruments Incorporated 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 QCOM and TXN 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.
- Value69 vs 35QCOM +34
- Risk Resilience46 vs 62TXN +16
- Momentum48 vs 54TXN +6
- Quality83 vs 80Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor QCOM. QCOM’s edge is concentrated in value; TXN keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +17
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
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 4 active signals are unchanged.
QCOM's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QCOM and TXN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QCOM (QUALCOMM Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
TXN (Texas Instruments Incorporated): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, fundamentals.
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
QCOMQCOM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TXNTXN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QCOMQCOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
TXNTXN on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
TXNTXN on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | QCOM | TXN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +16% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +123.2% | +54.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 15 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | QCOM | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.49% | 8.13% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.570 | $3.720 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.520 | $5.500 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #203 | #143 |
TXN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.13% a year against QCOM's 6.49%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QCOM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QCOM | 64 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | TXNon balance | revenue growth -6.2% vs 13.2%; EPS growth -72.7% vs 25.9%; TTM ROE 37.3% vs 35.8%; gross margin 54.2% vs 58.3%; operating margin 23.2% vs 37.3% — TXN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QCOM | Value 69 vs 35 |
| Technicals | TXN | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs 4.6%; vs 200-day 3.7% vs 8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | TXN | Risk Resilience 46 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 15.8% vs 16% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QCOM and TXN 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 QCOM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QCOM +7
- 64 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- QCOM +2
- 61 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- QCOM +2
- 68 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- QCOM +8
- 63 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when QCOM moved ahead of TXN.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only QCOM
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.02%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only TXN
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
QCOM 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.28%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.47%, 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.
- 1TXN closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge.
- 2TXN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3QCOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
TXN leads on balance| Metric | QCOM | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.2% | 13.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -72.7% | 25.9% |
| Gross margin | 54.2% | 58.3% |
| Operating margin | 23.2% | 37.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 37.3% | 35.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.55 | 0.78 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | QCOM | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.7% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.4% | 2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0% | -5.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.6% | 19.1% |
| Year to date | 2.7% | 60.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.1% | 58.3% |
Technicals
TXN has the stronger structure| Metric | QCOM | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39 | 47.8 |
| ADX (14) | 10.8 | 14.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | 4.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.7% | 8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.9% | 26.7% |
Risk
TXN is the more resilient| Metric | QCOM | TXN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.08 | 1.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.33 | 1.18 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.49 | 2.14 |
| Max drawdown | -41.2% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -30% | -16.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 53.3% | 42.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QCOM or TXN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QCOM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against TXN's 57. The edge comes from value. TXN 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 QCOM or TXN the better buy right now?
QCOM 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: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QCOM over TXN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QCOM leads Value by 34 points; TXN leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; TXN leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QCOM or TXN?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for QCOM and +16% for TXN. 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, QCOM or TXN?
QCOM is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QCOM on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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, QCOM or TXN?
TXN 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, QCOM or TXN?
TXN on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, QCOM or TXN?
TXN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TXN on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 QCOM more profitable than TXN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54.2% vs 58.3%; operating margin 23.2% vs 37.3%; ttm roe 37.3% vs 35.8%. QCOM leads on one measure and TXN on two measures, 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 QCOM's lead over TXN getting stronger or weaker?
QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 7 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when QCOM moved ahead of TXN.
What would change the QCOM vs TXN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: TXN closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge; TXN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; QCOM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 QCOM and TXN?
QCOM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. TXN: 3 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 QCOM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On TXN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare QCOM and TXN 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.