Broadcom Inc. (AVGO)vs QUALCOMM Incorporated (QCOM)

Quick verdict

Scale is the first thing to register here: at the 4 September 2026 close Broadcom carried a market value of about $1,708.5bn against Qualcomm's $177.2bn, roughly ten times the size, even though the revenue gap is far narrower — $89.1bn versus $44.1bn in the trailing twelve months. That mismatch is the comparison in miniature. Investors are paying 45.7 times trailing earnings and 19.2 times sales for Broadcom's growth and margins, and 19.3 times earnings and 4.0 times sales for Qualcomm's steadier, more mature profile. On our scoring Broadcom takes growth, quality and balance sheet, Qualcomm takes valuation and income, and momentum is a tie, leaving 3.5 against 2.5. Neither result is a recommendation: the numbers describe a premium-priced compounder on one side and a cash-returning incumbent on the other, and the choice turns on which trade-off suits you.

At-a-glance comparison

Business model and revenue mix

Both are US-listed semiconductor designers on Nasdaq, but they monetise very differently. Broadcom designs chips for networking, broadband, storage and wireless, and has bolted a large infrastructure software arm onto that base through the VMware acquisition — a mix that shows up in a 68.8% gross margin and 48.1% operating margin over the twelve months to August 2026. Qualcomm designs mobile and automotive processors under the Snapdragon brand and separately licenses its wireless patent portfolio for a royalty on handset sales, producing a 54.2% gross margin and 23.2% operating margin in the twelve months to June 2026. Both report a genuine operating-income line, so the margins are as filed. The practical difference is concentration: Qualcomm's fortunes remain tied to the handset cycle and its licensing terms, while Broadcom's revenue base now spans hardware and recurring software.

Valuation

On every multiple our data holds, Qualcomm is the cheaper share and takes this factor. At the 4 September 2026 close it traded on 19.3 times trailing earnings, 4.0 times sales, 6.4 times book and 15.8 times EV/EBITDA, against Broadcom at 45.7 times earnings, 19.2 times sales, 17.1 times book and 33.9 times EV/EBITDA. The cash-flow gap points the same way: a 5.9% free cash flow yield at Qualcomm versus 2.3% at Broadcom, on trailing free cash flow of $10.4bn and $39.4bn respectively. Broadcom's PEG of 2.11 shows the market is paying more than twice its growth rate, which is the usual price of a 24.4% three-year revenue CAGR. The spread is wide enough that this is not a close call — but it is a spread earned by the growth and margin figures below.

Growth profile

Growth is where Broadcom separates itself decisively. Revenue compounded at 24.4% a year from fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2025, and at 21.7% a year from fiscal 2020, with earnings per share up 21.6% annually over the three-year span. Qualcomm's record is flatter: revenue grew 0.1% a year from fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2025 — essentially stalled — although the five-year figure of 13.5% captures the stronger handset years earlier in the period. Its three-year EPS CAGR of -23.9% is a decline, not a slow gain, and the five-year figure of 2.1% is barely positive. Some of Broadcom's advantage reflects acquisition, VMware in particular, rather than purely organic demand, and a 24% compound rate is unlikely to be a permanent setting. Even allowing for that, the direction of travel differs sharply.

Profitability and quality

Margins reinforce the same verdict. Broadcom converted $89.1bn of trailing revenue into $42.8bn of operating profit and $38.3bn of net income — a 48.1% operating margin and 42.9% net margin, unusually high for a business with substantial hardware content and a reflection of the software mix. Qualcomm turned $44.1bn of revenue into $10.2bn of operating profit and $9.3bn of net income, giving 23.2% and 21.0% respectively; the licensing royalties help, but device sales dilute the blend. The gross margin gap, 68.8% against 54.2%, shows the difference starts at the product level rather than in overheads. In cash terms Broadcom generated $39.4bn of free cash flow to Qualcomm's $10.4bn, roughly four times as much on twice the revenue. Quality goes to Broadcom on every line available here.

Balance-sheet risk

Leverage is where the two are closest, despite very different absolute figures. As at August 2026 Broadcom held $24.0bn of cash against $59.4bn of total debt, much of it acquisition-related, while Qualcomm reported $4.5bn of cash and $13.3bn of debt as at June 2026. Scaled to earnings the positions almost converge: net debt of 0.69 times EBITDA at Broadcom and 0.74 times at Qualcomm, both modest. Broadcom has the better current ratio at 2.5 versus 2.02, and that liquidity edge, combined with the lower leverage multiple, is why this factor goes its way. Qualcomm is marginally ahead on interest coverage at 14.8 times against 13.7 times, so neither company looks stretched by its borrowings. This is a narrow win built on ratios, not a distress story on either side.

Price performance and shareholder returns

Capital returns split cleanly by style. Qualcomm pays a 2.1% dividend yield from $3.59 per share over the trailing year, with a 41.3% payout ratio, and adds a 5.2% buyback yield — a large repurchase programme against a $177.2bn market value. Broadcom yields 0.71% on $2.54 per share, pays out 31.6% of earnings and buys back the equivalent of 0.49%, directing far more of its $39.4bn free cash flow elsewhere. That makes Qualcomm the clear choice on income. On returns generated inside the business, Broadcom leads with a 44.3% return on equity and 30.0% return on invested capital against 33.8% and 23.2%; note that Qualcomm's heavy buybacks shrink its equity base, so ROIC is the fairer read, and Broadcom still leads on it.

Which stock fits which investor

The style tags say it plainly: Broadcom is high-growth, high-quality; Qualcomm is mature. Growth-oriented and quality-focused buyers are pointed towards Broadcom, which pairs a 24.4% three-year revenue CAGR with a 48.1% operating margin and 30.0% ROIC — but they are paying 45.7 times trailing earnings and 33.9 times EV/EBITDA for it, so the multiple does the work if growth slows. Value and income buyers are pointed towards Qualcomm, at 19.3 times earnings with a 5.9% free cash flow yield, a 2.1% dividend and a 5.2% buyback yield; the accompanying risk is the -23.9% three-year EPS CAGR and essentially flat revenue since fiscal 2022. Momentum is a tie between them. Overall the scoring favours Broadcom 3.5 to 2.5, but that margin rests on factors Qualcomm's price already reflects.

• Value: QCOM
• Growth: AVGO
• Income: QCOM
• Quality: AVGO

Frequently asked questions

Which is bigger, Broadcom or Qualcomm?

Broadcom, by a wide margin. Its market value was about $1,708.5bn at the 4 September 2026 close against Qualcomm's $177.2bn, roughly ten times larger. The revenue gap is narrower — $89.1bn for Broadcom in the twelve months to August 2026 versus $44.1bn for Qualcomm in the twelve months to June 2026 — so the valuation gap is about more than size alone.

Which share is cheaper on the numbers?

Qualcomm, on every multiple available. At the 4 September 2026 close it traded on 19.3 times trailing earnings, 4.0 times sales and 15.8 times EV/EBITDA, compared with 45.7, 19.2 and 33.9 for Broadcom. Its free cash flow yield of 5.9% is also well above Broadcom's 2.3%.

Which pays the better dividend?

Qualcomm. It yielded 2.13% on trailing dividends of $3.59 per share with a 41.3% payout ratio, against Broadcom's 0.71% yield on $2.54 per share and a 31.6% payout. Qualcomm also repurchased shares equal to a 5.22% buyback yield, versus 0.49% at Broadcom.

Why does Broadcom command such a high multiple?

Growth and margin. Revenue compounded 24.4% a year from fiscal 2022 to fiscal 2025 and EPS 21.6%, while Qualcomm's revenue CAGR over the same span was 0.1% and its EPS CAGR -23.9%. Broadcom also earned a 48.1% operating margin and 30.0% return on invested capital, against 23.2% for both at Qualcomm.

Is either company carrying risky debt levels?

Neither looks stretched. Broadcom's net debt was 0.69 times EBITDA and Qualcomm's 0.74 times, with interest coverage of 13.7 and 14.8 times respectively. Broadcom's absolute debt is far higher at $59.4bn against $13.3bn, but it also held $24.0bn of cash and generated $39.4bn of free cash flow over the trailing year.

Related comparisons

• AMD vs QCOM
• AVGO vs MU
• NVDA vs AVGO