QRVO vs SNPS Stock Comparison
Compare QRVO and SNPS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between QRVO and SNPS?
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
Qorvo, Inc. vs Synopsys, Inc.
QRVO leads
QRVO leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 10 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SNPS on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support QRVO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Qorvo, Inc.
Synopsys, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QRVO over SNPS, 68 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. QRVO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. QRVO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SNPS. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QRVO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. QRVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Qorvo, Inc. and Synopsys, 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 QRVO and SNPS 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.
- Momentum83 vs 32QRVO +51
- Value71 vs 46QRVO +25
- Risk Resilience61 vs 46QRVO +15
- Quality56 vs 58Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor QRVO. QRVO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -5
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
QRVO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — QRVO and SNPS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QRVO (Qorvo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
SNPS (Synopsys, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 62.4% 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 25 points.
Momentum
QRVOQRVO on the Momentum factor, by 51 points.
Lower downside
QRVOQRVO on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
SNPSSNPS 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 SNPS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | QRVO | SNPS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -19.4% | +36.6% | SNPS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +57.4% | +33.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 9 | 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
5 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 | 68 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | QRVOon balance | revenue growth -2.9% vs 8.8%; EPS growth 203.1% vs 30.7%; TTM ROE 11.4% vs 3.6%; gross margin 48.2% vs 72.4%; operating margin 13.1% vs 9.8% — QRVO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | QRVO | Value 71 vs 46 |
| Technicals | QRVO | Price vs 50-day 25.4% vs -2.9%; vs 200-day 25.2% vs -11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | QRVO | Risk Resilience 61 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | SNPS | Target upside -19.4% vs 36.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of QRVO and SNPS 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 22 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 swung materially session to session. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QRVO +22
- 68 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- QRVO +22
- 68 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- QRVO +10
- 66 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- QRVO +4
- 51 vs 47
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when QRVO moved ahead of SNPS.
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.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.29%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.04%)
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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.05%, 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.
- 1SNPS closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge.
- 2SNPS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3QRVO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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
QRVO leads on balance| Metric | QRVO | SNPS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.9% | 8.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 203.1% | 30.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.2% | 72.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.1% | 9.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.4% | 3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.45 | 0.35 |
Performance
QRVO leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | QRVO | SNPS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.7% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.4% | -3.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 18.3% | -13.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 35% | -8.3% |
| Year to date | 25.8% | -15.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.4% | -34.8% |
Technicals
QRVO has the stronger structure| Metric | QRVO | SNPS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84.3 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 20.2 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 25.4% | -2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 25.2% | -11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.3% | 62.4% |
Risk
QRVO is the more resilient| Metric | QRVO | SNPS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.23 | 1.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.61 | -0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.89 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -23.8% | -38.4% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -34.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.7% | 59.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.4% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, QRVO or SNPS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QRVO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 68 against SNPS's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 QRVO or SNPS the better buy right now?
QRVO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 QRVO over SNPS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. QRVO leads Momentum by 51 points; QRVO leads Value by 25 points; QRVO leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, QRVO or SNPS?
Analyst price targets imply -19.4% upside for QRVO and +36.6% for SNPS, so the Street currently favors SNPS. 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, QRVO or SNPS?
QRVO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. QRVO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, QRVO or SNPS?
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, QRVO or SNPS?
QRVO on the Momentum factor, by 51 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, QRVO or SNPS?
QRVO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QRVO on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 QRVO more profitable than SNPS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.2% vs 72.4%; operating margin 13.1% vs 9.8%; ttm roe 11.4% vs 3.6%. QRVO leads on two measures and SNPS 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 QRVO's lead over SNPS getting stronger or weaker?
QRVO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 22 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 2026-08-28, when QRVO moved ahead of SNPS.
What would change the QRVO vs SNPS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SNPS closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to QRVO's edge; SNPS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; QRVO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 2 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 QRVO and SNPS?
QRVO: 6 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. SNPS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 QRVO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SNPS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare QRVO and SNPS 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.