COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
AVGO vs QCOM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. AVGO scored 72.2, QCOM scored 66.5 — AVGO leads.
Compare another set
AVGO
Broadcom Inc.
72.2
$368.45 · $1.8T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
5.7
AVGO 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
- CheapestQCOM18.4x
- Fastest growthAVGO+32.3%
- 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
80
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
93
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
51
51
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
QCOM is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
AVGO
QCOM
$32.8bA
FCF
$10.4bA-
+32.3%A
Rev
+1.9%C
0.74C+
D/E
0.55C+
61.3xC
P/E
18.4xA-
0.41A
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
AVGO
QCOM
215% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
92% above
~47%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
-76%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
-68%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
-54%
10-yr DCF upside
-53%
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.
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $1.8T. Down 26% from 52-week high of $495.00 — deep drawdown territory. Revenue growing +32% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.41 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 45 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $527.88 (implying +43% upside).
Moat
Net margin 39% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. 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
Trailing P/E 61.3x prices in sustained high growth — any quarter that disappoints triggers sharp re-rating. Beta 1.47 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 23.2x embeds aggressive forward growth — disappointing top-line guidance would compress the multiple hard.
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
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 5.7 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 93.1 · QCOM 51.4AVGO +41.7
- ValueAVGO 50.7 · QCOM 64.9QCOM +14.2
- QualityAVGO 79.7 · QCOM 88.1QCOM +8.4
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.