Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AVGO scored 71.0, QCOM scored 40.4 — AVGO leads.
Compare another set
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
71
$361.54 · $1.7T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
30.6
AVGO leads
QCOM
QUALCOMM Incorporated
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
40.4
$175.50 · $187.4B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
CheapestQCOM20.3x
Fastest growthAVGO+23.9%
Strongest balance sheetQCOM0.55
Highest qualityQCOM88 / 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
QCOM
82
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
94
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
25
46
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
30
AVGO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AVGO
QCOM
$39.4bA
FCF
$10.4bA-
+23.9%A-
Rev
+1.9%C
0.60C+
D/E
0.55C+
46.2xC+
P/E
20.3xB+
0.36A
PEG
—
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
QCOM
167% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
91% above
~42%/yr
Growth the price impliesyr-1 FCF growth, fading to 4% · lower = less priced in
~20%/yr
-71%
1-yr DCF upside
-46%
-63%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
-48%
10-yr DCF upside
-49%
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
AVGO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
QCOM
Why this score
Buying back stock
Durable high returns
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.
QCOMQUALCOMM Incorporated
Semiconductors · $175.50 · beta 1.65
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $187.4b. Down 32% from 52-week high of $259.92 — deep drawdown territory. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $194.13 (implying +11% upside).
Moat
Net margin 21% sits well above the S&P median (~11%) — suggests structural pricing advantage or cost discipline competitors can't quickly close. ROE 33% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. FCF converts 112% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash.
Risk
Down 32% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.65 implies above-market volatility — position-size to the drawdowns this name will produce in a market correction, not to its bull-case return. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
Verdict — model-derived comparison
AVGO leads QCOM by 2.1 points (73.2 to 71.1), its sharpest advantage coming in Rev (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer QCOM for its stronger P/E (grade A-). Note they play different roles — AVGO screens as growth, QCOM screens as value — so the model rewards different traits for each.
Our AI analyst is busy right now, so this verdict is drawn directly from the pillars, grades and DCF above.
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 QCOM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 30.6 points in favor of AVGO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
GrowthAVGO 94.3 · QCOM 25.3AVGO +69.0
ValueAVGO 46.0 · QCOM 29.8AVGO +16.2
QualityAVGO 82.5 · QCOM 87.6QCOM +5.1
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 QCOM the better stock?
AVGO scores higher: AVGO 71.0, QCOM 40.4 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 QCOM differ most?
The widest gap is growth, where AVGO leads by 69 points on the 0–100 pillar scale. Neither name sweeps: they trade the lead across the three pillars, so the comparison is a trade-off rather than one being better on every measure.
How are AVGO and QCOM 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.