AMX vs CSCO

For growth investors, Cisco Systems, Inc.

(CSCO) is the stronger pick with 5. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus 1. 8% for América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. (AMX). América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. (AMX) offers the better valuation at 18. 2x trailing P/E (0. 8x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. (AMX) a "Buy" — based on 24 analyst ratings — the highest consensus in this comparison. The "better buy" depends entirely on your goals: growth investors should weight revenue trajectory, value investors should weight P/E and PEG, and income investors should weight dividend yield and streak.

On trailing P/E, América Móvil, S.

A. B. de C. V. (AMX) is the cheapest at 18. 2x versus Cisco Systems, Inc. at 35. 9x. On forward P/E, América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. is actually cheaper at 0. 8x.

Over the past 5 years, América Móvil, S.

A. B. de C. V. (AMX) delivered a total return of +258. 8%, compared to +89. 7% for Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: AMX returned +312. 6% versus CSCO's +299. 4%. Past returns do not guarantee future results, and the stock with the higher historical return may already have its best growth priced in.

By beta (market sensitivity over 5 years), América Móvil, S.

A. B. de C. V. (AMX) is the lower-risk stock at 0. 50β versus Cisco Systems, Inc. 's 0. 92β — meaning CSCO is approximately 83% more volatile than AMX relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 63% versus 2% for América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. — giving it more financial flexibility in a downturn.

By revenue growth (latest reported year), Cisco Systems, Inc.

(CSCO) is pulling ahead at 5. 3% versus 1. 8% for América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. (AMX). On earnings-per-share growth, the picture is similar: América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. grew EPS 248. 6% year-over-year, compared to 0. 4% for Cisco Systems, Inc.. Over a 3-year CAGR, CSCO leads at 3. 2% annualised revenue growth. Higher growth typically commands a higher valuation multiple — check whether the premium P/E or P/S is justified by the growth rate using the PEG ratio.

Cisco Systems, Inc.

(CSCO) is the more profitable company, earning 18. 0% net margin versus 8. 8% for América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. — meaning it keeps 18. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: AMX leads at 21. 0% versus 20. 8% for CSCO. At the gross margin level — before operating expenses — CSCO leads at 64. 9%, reflecting greater pricing power or product mix advantage. Stronger margins indicate durable pricing power, lower cost of revenue, or higher mix of software/services. They are one of the clearest signs of business quality.

On forward earnings alone, América Móvil, S.

A. B. de C. V. (AMX) trades at 0. 8x forward P/E versus 22. 1x for Cisco Systems, Inc. — 21. 2x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CSCO: 5. 3% to $96. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

América Móvil, S. A. B. de C. V. (AMX) offers the highest yield at 2. 2%, versus 1. 8% for Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO).

For long-horizon retirement investors, América Móvil, S.

A. B. de C. V. (AMX) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0. 50), 2. 2% yield, +312. 6% 10Y return). Both have compounded well over 10 years (AMX: +312. 6%, CSCO: +299. 4%), confirming both are viable long-term holds — but the lower-volatility option typically results in less emotional selling during corrections. Retirement portfolios generally favour predictability over maximum returns. Consult a financial advisor before making allocation decisions.

These companies operate in different sectors (AMX (Communication Services) and CSCO (Technology)), which means they face different economic cycles, regulatory environments, and macro sensitivities — making direct comparison nuanced.

These fundamental differences mean investors should not choose between them on a single metric — the "better stock" depends entirely on which of these characteristics aligns with your investment strategy.