Skip to main content
Preview

Research from Friday’s close · next update overnight after Monday’s close

Radar
QCOM

QCOM Research brief

Qualcomm

Adjusted close as of 2026-10-30
$164.79(−11.12%)

Sagehood’s view on QCOM

Qualcomm · Research 2026-10-30 · Accepted

Research score

48Neutral50 is balancedScore change −2 since 2026-10-29, from 50 to 48; view unchanged at Neutral. Compare the two recordsConfidence 49 · It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.Confidence across the 100 names in this research run: 45 to 70, median 55.
How to read this score

Dated research brief

WhyQCOM looks neutral because the tape broke down while the balance sheet holds. The unresolved risk is that the DCF base value of $79.9 sits 51% below the $164.79 close while peer comps point far higher.This view cites the model's $79.90 cash-flow estimate, which the valuation model itself declined. See Valuation range.
What argues against this viewThe strongest case against the neutral view is that the DCF and the peer comps disagree sharply.
Break conditionFrom the financial specialist: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the deceleration claim.Tests that specialist’s reading, not this page’s whole Neutral view.

Sagehood does not check this condition automatically. See research limitations below.

Valuation range

No model fair value · the discounted cash flow model declined

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($79.90) and the peer-multiple estimate ($288.14) were 3.6 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.

Close $164.79 (recorded) on 2026-10-30; estimates use fundamentals to 2026-06-28.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)
Bear
$58.70
Base
$79.90
Bull
$120.50

The model’s own grid cells, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Against peers

Information Technology
MultipleQCOMGroup medianPercentile
P/E (TTM)18.83×32.93×23rd
P/S4.03×7.08×19th
P/B6.43×8.35×28th
FCF yield5.86%2.54%83rd
Score details & research limitations9 unavailable fields
Conditions Sagehood can check on its ownNot available in this run. A written break condition is not an automated check; this run does not provide a source-linked rule Sagehood can verify on its own.

Where the break condition comes from: Sagehood research took this condition from the financial specialist. It tests that specialist’s own reading, so it does not say everything that would change this page’s Neutral view.

How to read this research

The score expresses the published research view. 50 is balanced.

Bullish, Neutral or Bearish beside the score is the direction of that view, set by the research from the score: 65 and above is Bullish, 45 to 64 Neutral, 44 and below Bearish.

Confidence is how well the evidence supports this view, not which way it points: Sagehood research is asked to keep it no higher than its most confident specialist, and lower when the specialists disagree or much of the evidence is weak. It is not a calibrated probability of investment success.

Source verification checks the identity and origin of evidence. It does not prove that a claim is correct or that an investment will succeed.

Valuation estimates depend on their inputs and assumptions. They are not guaranteed future prices.

Retrospective research looks back at an earlier period. It is not a verified record of a decision made then using only information available then.

Unavailable is not zero. Read the adjacent reason: information may be missing, unverified or deliberately withheld.

How Sagehood works

The session this view is fixed to

Close$164.79 on 2026-10-30, as the research recorded it
Change on the day−11.12%
First eligible market session2026-11-02

Recorded score context

Specialist source coverage7 of 10 specialists have a verified source on this run. 3 do not.
Score reconciliationThe 7 specialist contributions shown add up to the weighted starting point this score was built from.
Change since the last accepted run50 on 2026-10-29 → 48 on 2026-10-30 (−2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.
The run this is compared withResearch of 2026-10-29

Not in this run: Run-specific score definition, Confidence band, Horizon, Why the score changed, Today's unexplained move and Blockers.

What this was built from

Filing cited in the evidenceNot recorded on this card. The newest filing on record is under Key financials, and recent filings are listed under SEC filings.
Peer set27 names in Information Technology, listed with how they were chosen under “Valuation & peers”. The peer-implied median is under “Valuation & peers”.

Not in this run: Company profile date and Standing disclosure.

Not available in this run

9 fields are unavailable. Each is identified with its reason above; missing information is not zero or a negative research signal.

Price context

· adjusted close $164.79

−19.1% from 2026-06-25

Recent price-basis check: 2026-10-02 to 2026-10-30 (20 sessions). Economic comparability outside this window remains unchecked.

QCOM adjusted close
Adjusted price · USD · viewing 2026-06-25 to 2026-10-30

Selected 2026-10-30. QCOM adjusted close. Continuous series. $164.79 US dollars.

90 daily adjusted-price observations through 2026-10-30, ending at the 2026-10-30 research date. The final point is a dated final close. Shown for context, not point-in-time research evidence: the research used the prices recorded with it.

Use the arrow keys on the chart to step through observations.

Published score history

2026-07-23 to 2026-10-30 · 37 publications

Each point is a verified published score. The line breaks where the research method changed (4 methods, numbered in the order they were first used), so scores are not joined across methods. Hollow points were published after their decision window (retrospective).

Every published score and confidence
Research dateScoreViewConfidenceMethod
2026-10-3048Neutral49Method 4
2026-10-2950Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-2850Neutral50Method 4
2026-10-2752Neutral48Method 4
2026-10-2650Neutral30Method 4
2026-10-2350Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-2245Neutral52Method 4
2026-10-2150Neutral45Method 4
2026-10-1640Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-0944Bearish55Method 4
2026-10-0744Bearish45Method 4
2026-10-0247Neutral55Method 4
2026-10-0147Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-3048Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-2948Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-2848Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-2551Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-24 · retrospective51Neutral52Method 4
2026-09-2352Neutral60Method 4
2026-09-1851Neutral55Method 4
2026-09-16 · retrospective54Neutral52Method 4
2026-09-09 · retrospective50Neutral62Method 4
2026-09-0448Neutral50Method 4
2026-09-01 · retrospective46Neutral49Method 4
2026-08-31 · retrospective50Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-2850Neutral60Method 3
2026-08-26 · retrospective50Neutral58Method 3
2026-08-24 · retrospective48Neutral58Method 3
2026-08-20 · retrospective48Neutral58Method 3
2026-08-19 · retrospective48Neutral58Method 3
2026-08-1450Neutral60Method 2
2026-08-1350Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0748Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0648Neutral60Method 1
2026-08-0449Neutral60Method 1
2026-07-3138Bearish68Method 1
2026-07-2343Bearish50Method 1

Specialists

7 of 10 published specialist analyses are available.

Each specialist’s view is shown as the published research recorded it; supporting detail appears only when it was recorded with that same view.

3 unavailable

QCOM research

Financial specialist

Showing Financial specialist result.

Financial specialist

Evaluated for this session

Neutral

Qualcomm's trailing-twelve-month revenue of $44,069 million grew only 1.9%, far below the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, and quarterly revenue turned negative at −4.0%.

Full analyst note

What the specialist sees

Evidence: trailing-twelve-month revenue was $44,069 million, up 1.9% year over year, versus the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, and the latest quarter's revenue fell 4.0% year over year. Operating margin declined 4.6 points to 16.3% in the quarter ended 2026-06-28, while trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $10,416 million and net debt to EBITDA was 0.7.

Why it matters now

A revenue decline alongside a 4.6-point operating-margin contraction points to weakening demand and pricing in the core chip business, even as strong free cash flow and low leverage cushion the balance sheet.

What could change the view

Countercase: If the revenue decline is a timing shift in a lumpy licensing or handset cycle rather than lost share, the deterioration read is wrong; the missing earnings-surprise history leaves the demand trend unconfirmed. Falsifier: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the deceleration claim.

Specialist score details
Specialist score
47
Evidence confidence
60
Base weight for this role
0.13
Base weight × confidence
7.80
Weight in the score (the chip's weight)
0.20
Weighted contribution
9.52
Business driver
Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $44,069 million, up 1.9% year over year, versus the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, and the latest quarter's revenue fell 4.0% year over year. Operating margin declined 4.6 points to 16.3% in the quarter ended 2026-06-28, while trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $10,416 million and net debt to EBITDA was 0.7.
Mechanism
A revenue decline alongside a 4.6-point operating-margin contraction points to weakening demand and pricing in the core chip business, even as strong free cash flow and low leverage cushion the balance sheet.
Countercase
If the revenue decline is a timing shift in a lumpy licensing or handset cycle rather than lost share, the deterioration read is wrong; the missing earnings-surprise history leaves the demand trend unconfirmed.
Contributions & coverage details

Specialist contributions

Each specialist’s recorded numbers, in the usual specialist order, as recorded: nothing is re-ranked or recalculated. Weights and contributions show two decimals; hover for the exact value.

Financial specialist

Neutral

Score
47
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.20
Weighted contribution
9.52

Risk specialist

Bearish

Score
33
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.11
Weighted contribution
3.77

Sector specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
55
Weight in the score
0.14
Weighted contribution
7.14

SEC filings specialist

Neutral

Score
50
Evidence confidence
58
Weight in the score
0.05
Weighted contribution
2.26

News specialist

Bearish

Score
40
Evidence confidence
48
Weight in the score
0.14
Weighted contribution
5.48

Price-trend specialist

Bearish

Score
38
Evidence confidence
45
Weight in the score
0.23
Weighted contribution
8.88

Economy specialist

Neutral

Score
52
Evidence confidence
60
Weight in the score
0.12
Weighted contribution
6.48

Published specialist analyses unavailable: Valuation specialist, Geopolitics specialist, Social-media specialist. No specialist result is inferred.

  • Valuation specialist: The valuation specialist did not vote on this run because the valuation model declined to give a fair value: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($79.90) and the peer-multiple estimate ($288.14) were 3.6 times apart. The peer-multiple estimate rests on medians that include figures from another company that are withheld on its own page; see “Valuation & peers”.
  • Geopolitics specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.
  • Social-media specialist: This specialist had no checked public source on this run, so no source-backed analysis is shown.

How this insight was formed

Each specialist view shown here is checked against the published research files. Sagehood research combined those views into the one Research Score above.

Evidence & method

Inspect the reasoning, source records and valuation behind this dated view.

Sagehood research reasoningSpecialist reasoning, selected statements and filing context
Accepted publication2026-10-30 researchNext eligible session 2026-11-02point-in-time

QCOM: Sagehood research reasoning

Accepted research score

48

Neutral50 is balanced
Lead specialist in the research decision:

Financial specialist

Neutral

Specialist score 47Evidence confidence 60
What the specialist sees

Trailing-twelve-month revenue was $44,069 million, up 1.9% year over year, versus the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median, and the latest quarter's revenue fell 4.0% year over year. Operating margin declined 4.6 points to 16.3% in the quarter ended 2026-06-28, while trailing-twelve-month free cash flow was $10,416 million and net debt to EBITDA was 0.7.

Why it matters

A revenue decline alongside a 4.6-point operating-margin contraction points to weakening demand and pricing in the core chip business, even as strong free cash flow and low leverage cushion the balance sheet.

What argues against it

If the revenue decline is a timing shift in a lumpy licensing or handset cycle rather than lost share, the deterioration read is wrong; the missing earnings-surprise history leaves the demand trend unconfirmed.

This specialist’s break condition: A later reading showing trailing-twelve-month revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the deceleration claim.

How the score was formed

The specialists’ weighted starting point was 43.53. Sagehood research’s adjustment was +4.47. 50 on 2026-10-29 → 48 on 2026-10-30 (−2 points). This is simple arithmetic between the two published scores, not an explanation of the change.

Evidence Sagehood research weighed

These selected claims are evidence Sagehood research weighed, not a reconstruction of the numeric adjustment.

Claims as this research published them. Sagehood confirms each claim and its support were published together with this research. That is not an independent check, and it does not prove the claim is accurate or predict future performance.

  1. Financial specialist

    Same statement as under “What the specialist sees” above.

  2. Price-trend specialist

    Close 164.79 fell 11.12% on 2026-10-30 with volume 24.1M against a 10.5M average, breaking below the $168.16 resistance and the $172.11 level; 14-day RSI 38.9, MACD bear-cross 1 day ago, ADX 12.2.

  3. Risk specialist

    Qualcomm shows annualized 20-day volatility of 48.7% against 60-day volatility of 46.5%, a drawdown now of −33.8%, downside beta of 2.38 versus beta to SPY of 2.13, 40 large-move days over the last year, and earnings 5 days away.

Sagehood research decision

The investment case, main risk and break condition are the ones shown under Sagehood’s view at the top of this page.

Recorded break condition
Break condition as kept in the decision trail

A later reading showing TTM revenue growth at or above the 23.1% sector revenue-growth median would break the deceleration claim.

Evidence & sourcesClaim-support availability, filing-context links and research method

QCOM: This run has no checked links from its claims to their evidence. The specialists’ writing is shown as recorded, and no missing evidence is filled in.

Accepted research

Research dated 2026-10-30.

How this research was made

This research is AI-generated and is not investment advice.

Research date
2026-10-30
Valuation & peersInput limits notedFair-value cells, peer multiples and the inputs behind the range

Valuation: the model declined to give a fair value

Against the 2026-10-30 close of $164.79 (recorded)

Fundamentals reference date: 2026-06-28.

The valuation model declined to give a fair value for this stock: the model’s cash-flow estimate ($79.90) and the peer-multiple estimate ($288.14) were 3.6 times apart.

Rejected model output (not a valuation)

The discounted cash flow grid cells this run nominated, kept for reference. The model’s own check rejected them: they are not a valuation and not a price target.

Bear
$58.70−64% vs close
Base
$79.90−51% vs close
Bull
$120.50−27% vs close

Implied by the median of 3 peer-median multiples: $288.14 (+74.9% vs close)

Peers: the 27 Liquid 100 names in Information Technology that this run priced. Companies outside the Liquid 100 are not in the set.

The 27 names

AAPL, AMD, APH, AVGO, CRM, CRWD, CSCO, DELL, GEN, GLW, HPE, HPQ, INTC, KLAC, LRCX, MCHP, MRVL, MSFT, MU, NOW, NVDA, ON, ORCL, PLTR, SMCI, SNDK, WDC.

Multiples against the peer group

Information Technology · 27 companies in the group

Sector median includes AVGO, whose per-share figure failed the share-basis check in this research.

  • Price to earnings (trailing twelve months)18.83×

    Peer median 32.93× · middle half 20.61× to 49.15× · 23rd percentile of the group

  • Price to sales4.03×

    Peer median 7.08× · middle half 5.01× to 12.88× · 19th percentile of the group

  • Price to book6.43×

    Peer median 8.35× · middle half 6.41× to 15.99× · 28th percentile of the group

  • Free cash flow yield5.86%

    Peer median 2.54% · middle half 1.33% to 4.83% · 83rd percentile of the group

This run declares Enterprise value to EBITDA and computes no value for it, for this company or for its peer group.

Evidence limits: 4 valuation inputs required conservative handling: another valuation input required conservative handling; no full-year gross-profit line was filed; depreciation and amortization were available but not used because this version does not compute an EV/EBITDA multiple.

Includes the currently displayed specialist or comparison, not every specialist. Dates and limitations remain attached.

Sagehood research is for general information. It is not individualized investment advice or a recommendation to buy or sell any security.

Qualcomm (QCOM) research | Sagehood