Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AVGO scored 71.0, MPWR scored 59.5 — AVGO leads.
Compare another set
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
71
$361.54 · $1.7T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
11.5
AVGO leads
MPWR
Monolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
59.5
$1,386.29 · $68.1B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestAVGO46.2x
Fastest growthMPWR+28.7%
Strongest balance sheetMPWR0.00
Highest qualityMPWR83 / 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)
AVGO
stronger →← stronger
MPWR
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
83
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
95
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
27
AVGO and MPWR split the three pillars evenly.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AVGO
MPWR
$39.4bA
FCF
$583mC+
+23.9%A-
Rev
+28.7%A-
0.60C+
D/E
0.00A
46.2xC+
P/E
84.3xC
0.36A
PEG
1.03B+
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
AVGO
MPWR
167% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
682% above
~42%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
>60%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-90%
-63%
5-yr DCF upside
-87%
-48%
10-yr DCF upside
-82%
The DCF is a cross-check on intrinsic value, separate from the quality-growth score above.
Model signals
AVGO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
MPWR
Why this score
Raising its dividend
Durable high returns
Diluting shareholders
The companies
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.
MPWRMonolithic Power Systems, Inc.
Semiconductors · $1,386.29 · beta 1.68
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $68.1b. 19% off the 52-week high of $1714.09. Revenue growing +29% — in hypergrowth territory. 15 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $1,840 (implying +33% upside).
Moat
Net margin 25% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 21% is above 15% — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. $68.1b market cap gives the company enough scale to absorb fixed costs that subscale competitors can't, without yet being so large that growth has to come from acquisition.
Risk
Trailing P/E 84.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.68 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 20.8x 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 AVGO and MPWR diverge
On the headline score the gap is 11.5 points in favor of AVGO. The widest single difference is Value, where AVGO leads by 19.3 points.
ValueAVGO 46.0 · MPWR 26.7AVGO +19.3
GrowthAVGO 94.3 · MPWR 95.4level
QualityAVGO 82.5 · MPWR 82.6level
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 MPWR the better stock?
AVGO scores higher: AVGO 71.0, MPWR 59.5 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 MPWR differ most?
The widest gap is value, where AVGO leads by 19 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. The other two pillars are close enough to call level, so this is the one place they genuinely separate.
How are AVGO and MPWR 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.