AVGO vs UCTT Stock Comparison
Compare AVGO and UCTT across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AVGO and UCTT?
AVGO leads the current stock comparison as Broadcom Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Broadcom Inc. vs Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
AVGO leads
AVGO leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 21 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UCTT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AVGO, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Broadcom Inc.
Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVGO over UCTT, 47 versus 34 as of Sep 6, 2026. AVGO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while UCTT holds the stronger value profile. AVGO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UCTT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Broadcom Inc. and Ultra Clean Holdings, 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 UCTT 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.
- Quality30%85 vs 19AVGO +66
- Value30%30 vs 50UCTT +20
- Risk Resilience15%53 vs 34AVGO +19
- Momentum25%20 vs 31UCTT +11
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AVGO. AVGO’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; UCTT keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
AVGO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVGO and UCTT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVGO (Broadcom Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
UCTT (Ultra Clean Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 80.4% against 35.2%.
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
AVGOAVGO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
UCTTUCTT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UCTTUCTT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
UCTTUCTT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
AVGOAVGO on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
UCTTUCTT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors AVGO, analyst targets favor UCTT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | AVGO | UCTT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +41% | +70.3% | UCTT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +49.5% | +12.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVGO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AVGO | 47 vs 34 |
| Fundamentals | AVGOon balance | revenue growth 14.9% vs 20.8%; EPS growth 26.5% vs 147.5%; TTM ROE 36.4% vs -3.5%; gross margin 67% vs 15.8%; operating margin 43.7% vs 2.8% — AVGO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UCTT | Value 30 vs 50 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -6.7% vs -19.1%; vs 200-day -3.2% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | AVGO | Risk Resilience 53 vs 34 |
| Analyst expectations | UCTT | Target upside 41% vs 70.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVGO and UCTT 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AVGO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVGO +13
- 47 vs 34
- 7 sessions ago
- AVGO +15
- 47 vs 32
- 30 sessions ago
- AVGO +21
- 58 vs 37
- 90 sessions ago
- AVGO +7
- 47 vs 40
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.74%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.64%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (33.34%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (8.63%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
AVGO 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 +0.21%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +8.77%, 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.
- 1UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge.
- 2UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate AVGO'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 | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.9% | 20.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.5% | 147.5% |
| Gross margin | 67% | 15.8% |
| Operating margin | 43.7% | 2.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.4% | -3.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.74 | 1.21 |
Performance
UCTT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AVGO | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -16.3% | -17% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | -11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.3% | 43.3% |
| Year to date | 3.4% | 185.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 18.4% | 210.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | AVGO | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.2 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 23.7 | 17.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -6.7% | -19.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.2% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.2% | 80.4% |
Risk
AVGO is the more resilient| Metric | AVGO | UCTT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.15 | 3.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 1.67 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.73 | 2.61 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -54.3% |
| Current drawdown | -25.7% | -49.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.4% | 87.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -8.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVGO or UCTT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVGO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 47 against UCTT's 34. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. UCTT 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 AVGO or UCTT the better buy right now?
AVGO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVGO over UCTT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. AVGO leads Quality by 66 points; UCTT leads Value by 20 points; AVGO leads Risk Resilience by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVGO or UCTT?
Analyst price targets imply +41% upside for AVGO and +70.3% for UCTT, so the Street currently favors UCTT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors AVGO. 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 UCTT?
UCTT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UCTT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 UCTT?
UCTT 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 UCTT?
UCTT on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, AVGO or UCTT?
AVGO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVGO on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 AVGO more profitable than UCTT?
AVGO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 67% vs 15.8%; operating margin 43.7% vs 2.8%; ttm roe 36.4% vs -3.5%.
Is AVGO's lead over UCTT getting stronger or weaker?
AVGO lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 21 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AVGO vs UCTT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UCTT closes the Quality gap — currently 66 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVGO's edge; UCTT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; AVGO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate AVGO's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AVGO and UCTT?
AVGO: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. UCTT: 1 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 AVGO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UCTT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVGO and UCTT 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.