COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
CRUS vs QCOM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. CRUS scored 67.0, QCOM scored 66.5 — CRUS leads.
Compare another set
CRUS
Cirrus Logic, Inc.
67
$115.33 · $5.8B
fundamentals as of
Score gap
0.5
CRUS leads
QCOM
QUALCOMM Incorporated
66.5
$160.75 · $168.8B
fundamentals as of
At a glance · who leads each dimension, on the model's own rules
- CheapestCRUS14.1x
- Fastest growthCRUS+6.2%
- Strongest balance sheetCRUS0.06
- Highest qualityCRUS89 / 100
- Largest discount to fair valueCRUS-26%
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)
CRUS
stronger →← stronger
QCOM
89
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
61
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
51
56
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
CRUS is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
CRUS
QCOM
$572mC+
FCF
$10.4bA-
+6.2%C+
Rev
+1.9%C
0.06A-
D/E
0.55C+
14.1xA
P/E
18.4xA-
9.35D
PEG
0.71A-
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
CRUS
QCOM
26% below
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
92% above
~-3%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
+30%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
+35%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
+41%
10-yr DCF upside
-53%
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
CRUS
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
QCOM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
CRUSCirrus Logic, Inc.
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $5.8b. Down 36% from 52-week high of $180.42 — deep drawdown territory. 4 sell-side analysts rate this a Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $165.00 (implying +43% 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 20% sits above Buffett's preferred 15% threshold — the equity base is compounding at a rate the market struggles to discount accurately. FCF converts 133% of net income — earnings translate cleanly into cash, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 36% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Semiconductor cyclicality — inventory corrections compress margins faster than analysts model. Monitor channel inventory and book-to-bill ratios as leading indicators.
QCOMQUALCOMM Incorporated
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $168.8b. Down 38% from 52-week high of $259.92 — deep drawdown territory. PEG 0.71 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 30 sell-side analysts rate this a Hold with a mean 1-yr target of $193.10 (implying +20% 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, a sign that working capital and capex are well-disciplined.
Risk
Down 38% from the 52-week high — the market is pricing in something the screen can't see; verify the bear case before sizing up. Beta 1.66 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
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 CRUS and QCOM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 0.5 points in favor of CRUS. They get there differently, though — each leads on a different pillar, so the better pick depends on which you weight.
- GrowthCRUS 60.7 · QCOM 51.4CRUS +9.3
- ValueCRUS 55.9 · QCOM 64.9QCOM +9.0
- QualityCRUS 88.6 · QCOM 88.1level
Pillars run 0–100 against sector peers, so a 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.