AVGO vs QRVO Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and QRVO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO and QRVO?
QRVO leads the current stock comparison as Qorvo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Qorvo, Inc.
QRVO leads
QRVO leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors AVGO on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support QRVO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Qorvo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QRVO over AVGO, 68 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. QRVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while AVGO holds the stronger quality profile. QRVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors AVGO. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Qorvo, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AVGO and QRVO 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.
- Momentum39 vs 83QRVO +44
- Value30 vs 71QRVO +41
- Quality85 vs 56AVGO +29
- Risk Resilience52 vs 61QRVO +9
4 of 6 evidence groups favor QRVO. QRVO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; AVGO keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -5
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
QRVO's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and QRVO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QRVO (Qorvo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.6% against 32.3%.
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
QRVOQRVO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
QRVOQRVO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
QRVOQRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 points.
Momentum
QRVOQRVO on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
QRVOQRVO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
AVGOAVGO on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors QRVO, analyst targets favor AVGO. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | QRVO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +39.4% | -19.4% | AVGO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +57.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 3 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | QRVO | 52 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs -2.9%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 203.1%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs 11.4%; gross margin 67% vs 48.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 13.1% — AVGO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QRVO | Value 30 vs 71 |
| Technicals | QRVO | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs 25.4%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs 25.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QRVO | Risk Resilience 52 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | AVGO | Target upside 39.4% vs -19.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and QRVO and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 QRVO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QRVO +16
- 52 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- QRVO +21
- 47 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- QRVO +21
- 45 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- QRVO +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 21 when QRVO moved ahead of AVGO.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.55%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.44%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
QRVO 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 +0.32%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.82%, 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.
- 1AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge.
- 2AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3QRVO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate QRVO'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
AVGO leads on balance| Metric | AVGO | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | -2.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 203.1% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 48.2% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 13.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | 11.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 0.45 |
Performance
QRVO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 11.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.3% | 14.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | 18.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | 35% |
| Year to date | 4.3% | 25.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 6.9% | 22.4% |
Technicals
QRVO has the stronger structure| Metric | AVGO | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.7 | 84.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 20.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | 25.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | 25.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 32.3% |
Risk
QRVO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | QRVO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.16 | 1.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.3 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.44 | 0.89 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -25.1% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 47.5% | 37.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -3.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or QRVO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QRVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 68 against AVGO's 52. The edge comes from momentum and value. AVGO 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 AVGO or QRVO the better buy right now?
QRVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QRVO over AVGO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QRVO leads Momentum by 44 points; QRVO leads Value by 41 points; AVGO leads Quality by 29 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or QRVO?
Analyst price targets imply +39.4% upside for AVGO and -19.4% for QRVO, so the Street currently favors AVGO. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors QRVO. 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, AVGO or QRVO?
QRVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 41 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, AVGO or QRVO?
QRVO 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, AVGO or QRVO?
QRVO on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, AVGO or QRVO?
QRVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QRVO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AVGO more profitable than QRVO?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 48.2%; operating margin 43.7% vs 13.1%; ttm roe 36.4% vs 11.4%.
Is QRVO's lead over AVGO getting stronger or weaker?
QRVO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-21, when QRVO moved ahead of AVGO.
What would change the AVGO vs QRVO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AVGO closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge; AVGO's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; QRVO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 16-point move would eliminate QRVO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and QRVO?
AVGO: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. QRVO: 6 bullish / 2 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 AVGO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QRVO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and QRVO 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.