Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. ADI scored 60.3, CRDO scored 76.9 — CRDO leads.
Compare another set
ADI
Analog Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
60.3
$406.19 · $196.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
16.6
CRDO leads
CRDO
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
76.9
$216.55 · $40.7B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestADI48.2x
Fastest growthCRDO+205.7%
Strongest balance sheetCRDO0.01
Highest qualityCRDO77 / 100
Side by side · every name on one set of axes
Growth against the P/E multiple. Up and to the right is cheaper and faster — the quality-growth idea in one picture. Points beyond the axis are pinned to the edge and marked off-scale rather than allowed to compress everything else.
The model, pillar by pillar (0–100 each)
ADI
stronger →← stronger
CRDO
72
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
77
89
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
100
34
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
59
CRDO is stronger on 3 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
ADI
CRDO
$4.9bB
FCF
$439mC
+16.9%B+
Rev
+205.7%A
0.27B
D/E
0.01A
48.2xC+
P/E
76.8xC
0.61A-
PEG
1.43B
Winner per row is the stronger grade; where grades tie, the better figure breaks it. A true tie or a missing value shows no highlight.
Valuation · DCF cross-check
ADI
CRDO
140% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
551% above
~34%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-65%
1-yr DCF upside
-88%
-58%
5-yr DCF upside
-85%
-47%
10-yr DCF upside
-78%
These two disagree on this pair: the Value pillar ranks cheapness against sector peers, while price-vs-fair-value is an absolute read. A name can be the better value in its sector and still the dearer one on cash flows.
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
ADI
Why this score
Raising its dividend
CRDO
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
The companies
ADIAnalog Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · $406.19 · beta 1.23
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $196.8b. 9% off the 52-week high of $445.91. Revenue growing +17%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.61 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 32 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $470.72 (implying +16% upside).
Moat
Net margin 30% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 12% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 119% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 48x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 14.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
CRDOCredo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Semiconductors · $216.55 · beta 3.25
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $40.7b. Down 30% from 52-week high of $308.67 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +206% — in hypergrowth territory. 20 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $279.09 (implying +29% upside).
Moat
Net margin 34% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 31% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. Semiconductor moat is process-design IP plus customer qualification timelines — once designed in, the company captures multiple product cycles before a competitor can displace.
Risk
Trailing P/E 76.8x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 3.25 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. P/S 25.6x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
Generating verdict… typically 5–10 seconds
Not investment advice. The Bull Rankings publishes a quantitative ranking model and accompanying analysis for general informational purposes only. Nothing on this page is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security; nothing is personalized to your circumstances, risk tolerance, or tax situation. Investing carries the risk of loss — invest at your own risk and consider consulting a licensed financial professional before acting on anything you read here. See terms and methodology for full disclosures.
Where ADI and CRDO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 16.6 points in favor of CRDO. The widest single difference is Value, where CRDO leads by 25.0 points.
ValueADI 34.3 · CRDO 59.3CRDO +25.0
GrowthADI 88.6 · CRDO 100.0CRDO +11.4
QualityADI 72.2 · CRDO 76.8CRDO +4.6
Pillars run 0–100. Value is judged against each company's own sector, so a Value score is a statement about a company relative to its own industry rather than to the other name here. A wide Value gap usually means the market already prices the difference in quality or growth — which is the trade-off this comparison comes down to.
Common questions
Is CRDO or ADI the better stock?
CRDO scores higher: CRDO 76.9, ADI 60.3 out of 100 on the Bull Rankings quality-growth score, which blends business quality, growth and valuation into one number. A higher score means a stronger business at a more reasonable price — it is not a price target or a recommendation.
Where do CRDO and ADI differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CRDO leads by 25 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. CRDO leads all three pillars, so the gap is broad rather than a single-measure difference.
How are CRDO and ADI scored?
Each carries the same 0–100 quality-growth score used everywhere on the site, built from three pillars — quality (profitability and returns on capital), growth (revenue and earnings), and value (what you pay for them) — combined as a geometric mean, so a weak pillar cannot be papered over by a strong one.
How current is this comparison?
The whole universe is re-scored every trading day after the US market close, so the scores and fundamentals here reflect the latest published edition.