SMCI vs QCOM Stock Comparison
Super Micro Computer, Inc. vs QUALCOMM Incorporated
QCOM leads
QCOM leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support QCOM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Super Micro Computer, Inc.
QUALCOMM Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors QCOM over SMCI, 69 versus 60 as of Sep 2, 2026. QCOM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while SMCI holds the stronger momentum profile. QCOM also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor QCOM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Super Micro Computer, Inc. and QUALCOMM Incorporated 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.
- Quality30%51 vs 83QCOM +32
- Risk Resilience15%35 vs 47QCOM +12
- Momentum25%73 vs 66SMCI +7
- Value30%72 vs 69Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor QCOM. QCOM’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; SMCI keeps a meaningful momentum 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.
QCOM's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — SMCI and QCOM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
QCOM (QUALCOMM Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
SMCI (Super Micro Computer, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 95.9% against 40.7%.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
SMCISMCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
SMCISMCI on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
QCOMQCOM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
QCOMQCOM 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 | SMCI | QCOM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.7% | +20% | QCOM has more room |
| Target dispersion | +44.3% | +137.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 20 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 60 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | QCOMon balance | revenue growth 8.6% vs -6.2%; EPS growth 133.3% vs -72.7%; ROE 24.9% vs 37.3%; gross margin 10.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 7.1% vs 23.2% — QCOM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 69 |
| Technicals | SMCI | Price vs 50-day 16% vs -1.8%; vs 200-day 19% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | QCOM | Risk Resilience 35 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | QCOM | Target upside 11.7% vs 20% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SMCI and QCOM 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 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 · Apr 20 – Sep 1QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- QCOM +9
- 60 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- QCOM +2
- 61 vs 63
- 30 sessions ago
- QCOM +5
- 56 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- QCOM +9
- 49 vs 58
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.04%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.67%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.62%)
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.94%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.59%, 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.
- 1SMCI closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge.
- 2SMCI 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 — 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
QCOM leads on balance| Metric | SMCI | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.6% | -6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 133.3% | -72.7% |
| Gross margin | 10.8% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 23.2% |
| Return on equity | 24.9% | 37.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.6 | 0.55 |
Technicals
SMCI has the stronger structure| Metric | SMCI | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 64.5 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 12.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 16% | -1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 95.9% | 40.7% |
Risk
QCOM is the more resilient| Metric | SMCI | QCOM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 3.75 | 2.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.25 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.34 | 0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -65% | -41.2% |
| Current drawdown | -36.5% | -32.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 91.6% | 51.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.5% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SMCI or QCOM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, QCOM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 69 against SMCI's 60. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. SMCI is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 SMCI or QCOM the better buy right now?
QCOM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor QCOM over SMCI?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. QCOM leads Quality by 32 points; QCOM leads Risk Resilience by 12 points; SMCI leads Momentum by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SMCI or QCOM?
Analyst price targets imply +11.7% upside for SMCI and +20% for QCOM, so the Street currently favors QCOM. 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, SMCI or QCOM?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, SMCI or QCOM?
SMCI 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, SMCI or QCOM?
SMCI on the Momentum factor, by 7 points. 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, SMCI or QCOM?
QCOM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. QCOM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 SMCI more profitable than QCOM?
QCOM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 10.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 7.1% vs 23.2%; roe 24.9% vs 37.3%.
Is QCOM's lead over SMCI getting stronger or weaker?
QCOM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the SMCI vs QCOM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SMCI closes the Quality gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to QCOM's edge; SMCI 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 — 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 SMCI and QCOM?
SMCI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. QCOM: 2 bullish / 1 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 SMCI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On QCOM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare SMCI and QCOM 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.