COMPARE · Data as of August 21, 2026
NVDA vs QCOM
Verdict: Side-by-side breakdown using the Bull Rankings model. NVDA scored 85.9, QCOM scored 66.5 — NVDA leads.
Compare another set
NVDA
NVIDIA Corporation
85.9
$214.72 · $5.2T
fundamentals as of
Score gap
19.4
NVDA 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 growthNVDA+70.7%
- Strongest balance sheetNVDA0.07
- 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)
NVDA
stronger →← stronger
QCOM
88
Qualityreturns · margins · balance sheet
88
99
Growthrevenue & earnings expansion
51
73
Valuevaluation vs sector peers
65
NVDA is stronger on 2 of 3 pillars.
Fundamentals, head-to-head
NVDA
QCOM
$119.1bA
FCF
$10.4bA-
+70.7%A
Rev
+1.9%C
0.07B+
D/E
0.55C+
32.9xB
P/E
18.4xA-
0.60A-
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
NVDA
QCOM
224% above
Price vs fair valuelower is cheaper
92% above
~50%/yr
Growth the price implies10-yr FCF · lower = less priced in
~17%/yr
-76%
1-yr DCF upside
-44%
-69%
5-yr DCF upside
-48%
-56%
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
NVDA
Why this score
- Raising its dividend
- Durable high returns
QCOM
Why this score
- Buying back stock
- Durable high returns
The companies
NVDANVIDIA Corporation
Why now
Semiconductors · market cap $5.2T. 9% off the 52-week high of $236.54. Revenue growing +71% — in hypergrowth territory. PEG 0.60 — paying under fair value for the growth rate. 58 sell-side analysts rate this a Strong Buy with a mean 1-yr target of $304.12 (implying +42% upside).
Moat
Net margin 63% is exceptional — pricing-power territory rare outside premium software, branded staples, and specialty pharma. ROE 82% — top-decile capital efficiency. Either pricing leverage, low capital intensity, or aggressive buybacks; the durability story depends on which. $5.2T market cap places it among the largest companies in the sector — distribution, R&D, and customer-acquisition costs amortize across a base peers can't replicate.
Risk
Beta 2.21 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 33x sits well above the S&P median (~20x) — multiple compression is a real risk if revenue growth decelerates. P/S 20.5x 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
NVDA leads QCOM by 14.9 points (86.0 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 — NVDA 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 NVDA and QCOM diverge
On the headline score the gap is 19.4 points in favor of NVDA. The widest single difference is Growth, where NVDA leads by 48.1 points.
- GrowthNVDA 99.5 · QCOM 51.4NVDA +48.1
- ValueNVDA 72.6 · QCOM 64.9NVDA +7.7
- QualityNVDA 87.8 · 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.