Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AMD scored 49.3, AVGO scored 71.0 — AVGO leads.
Compare another set
AMD
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
49.3
$608.10 · $992.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
21.7
AVGO leads
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
71
$361.54 · $1.7T
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAVGO46.2x
Fastest growthAMD+34.3%
Strongest balance sheetAMD0.06
Highest qualityAVGO82 / 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)
AMD
stronger →← stronger
AVGO
62
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
21
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
46
AVGO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AMD
AVGO
$8.4bB+
FCF
$39.4bA
+34.3%A
Rev
+23.9%A-
0.06A-
D/E
0.60C+
155.1xD
P/E
46.2xC+
0.62A-
PEG
0.36A
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
AMD
AVGO
729% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
167% above
>60%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~42%/yr
-91%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
-88%
5-yr DCF upside
-63%
-83%
10-yr DCF upside
-48%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AMD
No notable signals flagged.
AVGO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
AMDAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc.
Semiconductors · $608.10 · beta 2.45
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $992.7b. 8% off the 52-week high of $658.52. Revenue growing +34% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.62 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 50 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $636.21 (implying +5% upside).
Moat
Net margin 16% beats the market median by a meaningful margin — the company is keeping more of every revenue dollar than the average S&P constituent. ROE 10% meets the long-run market sustainable threshold — solid but not differentiated; the durability comes from elsewhere. FCF converts 130% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Trailing P/E 155.1x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 2.45 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 24.0x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
AVGOBroadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · $361.54 · beta 1.48
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $1.7T. Down 27% from 52-week high of $495.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +24%, comfortably above the S&P median. PEG 0.36 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 47 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $531.31 (implying +47% upside).
Moat
Net margin 43% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 44% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 103% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Beta 1.48 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Trailing P/E 46x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 19.4x 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 AMD and AVGO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 21.7 points in favor of AVGO. The widest single difference is Value, where AVGO leads by 25.5 points.
ValueAMD 20.5 · AVGO 46.0AVGO +25.5
QualityAMD 61.7 · AVGO 82.5AVGO +20.8
GrowthAMD 94.5 · AVGO 94.3level
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 AVGO or AMD the better stock?
AVGO scores higher: AVGO 71.0, AMD 49.3 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 AVGO and AMD differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AVGO leads by 26 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. AVGO also leads quality, while growth is effectively level between them.
How are AVGO and AMD 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.