Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRDO scored 76.9, AVGO scored 71.0 — CRDO leads.
Compare another set
CRDO
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd
Semiconductors · Quality-Growth
76.9
$216.55 · $40.7B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.9
CRDO 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 growthCRDO+205.7%
Strongest balance sheetCRDO0.01
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)
CRDO
stronger →← stronger
AVGO
77
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
82
100
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
94
59
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
46
CRDO is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CRDO
AVGO
$439mC
FCF
$39.4bA
+205.7%A
Rev
+23.9%A-
0.01A
D/E
0.60C+
76.8xC
P/E
46.2xC+
1.43B
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
CRDO
AVGO
551% 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
-88%
1-yr DCF upside
-71%
-85%
5-yr DCF upside
-63%
-78%
10-yr DCF upside
-48%
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
CRDO
Why this score
Diluting shareholders
AVGO
Why this score
Raising its dividend
The companies
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.
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
AVGO leads CRDO by 0.1 points (77.6 to 77.5), its sharpest advantage coming in FCF (grade A). A contrarian could still prefer CRDO for its stronger D/E (grade A).
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 CRDO and AVGO diverge
On the headline score the gap is 5.9 points in favor of CRDO. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
ValueCRDO 59.3 · AVGO 46.0CRDO +13.3
QualityCRDO 76.8 · AVGO 82.5AVGO +5.7
GrowthCRDO 100.0 · AVGO 94.3CRDO +5.7
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 AVGO the better stock?
CRDO scores higher: CRDO 76.9, AVGO 71.0 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 AVGO differ most?
The widest gap is value, where CRDO leads by 13 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 CRDO and AVGO 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.