ERIC vs CSCO

For growth investors, Cisco Systems, Inc.

(CSCO) is the stronger pick with 5. 3% revenue growth year-over-year, versus -14. 2% for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC). Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) offers the better valuation at 13. 9x trailing P/E (2. 0x forward), making it the more compelling value choice. Analysts rate Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO) a "Buy" — based on 73 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, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) is the cheapest at 13.

9x versus Cisco Systems, Inc. at 37. 0x. On forward P/E, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) is actually cheaper at 2. 0x.

Over the past 5 years, Cisco Systems, Inc.

(CSCO) delivered a total return of +99. 8%, compared to -3. 1% for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC). Over 10 years, the gap is even starker: CSCO returned +299. 4% versus ERIC's +80. 9%. 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), Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) is the lower-risk stock at 0.

61β versus Cisco Systems, Inc. 's 0. 92β — meaning CSCO is approximately 50% more volatile than ERIC relative to the S&P 500. On balance sheet safety, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) carries a lower debt/equity ratio of 42% versus 63% for Cisco Systems, Inc. — 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 -14. 2% for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC). 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 12. 0% for Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) — meaning it keeps 18. 0% of every revenue dollar as bottom-line profit. Operating margin tells a similar story: CSCO leads at 20. 8% versus 13. 8% for ERIC. 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, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) trades at 2.

0x forward P/E versus 22. 1x for Cisco Systems, Inc. — 20. 0x cheaper on a one-year earnings basis. Analyst consensus price targets imply the most upside for CSCO: 2. 3% to $96. 50.

All stocks in this comparison pay dividends.

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) offers the highest yield at 2. 4%, versus 1. 7% for Cisco Systems, Inc. (CSCO).

For long-horizon retirement investors, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) (ERIC) is the stronger choice — it scores higher on the combination of lower volatility, dividend reliability, and long-term compounding (low volatility (β 0.

61), 2. 4% yield). Both have compounded well over 10 years (ERIC: +80. 9%, 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.

Both stocks operate in the Technology sector, making this a peer-level intra-sector comparison — the same macro tailwinds and headwinds will affect both.

In terms of investment character: ERIC is a mid-cap deep-value stock; CSCO is a large-cap quality compounder stock. 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.