Credo Technology Group's Market Share Growth Amid Market Weakness
Written by Emily J. Thompson, Senior Investment Analyst
Updated: Mar 05 2025
0mins
Should l Buy CRDO?
Source: WSJ
Credo Technology Group (CRDO) has seen its stock price decline by 3.83%, hitting a 20-day low, as broader market indices such as the Nasdaq-100 and S&P 500 experience significant downturns of 2.00% and 1.24%, respectively.
Despite the current market weakness, Credo is projected to capture a remarkable 75% market share in the active electrical cable sector by 2026, with anticipated annual revenues of $4 billion to $5 billion. This growth is driven by the increasing demand for AI infrastructure, which is expected to propel the market from $1.2 billion this year to over $7 billion by 2030. Bank of America has raised its price target for Credo to $200, indicating a potential upside of 44% based on strong profitability expectations.
The implications of this market share growth are significant for Credo, as it positions the company as a leader in a rapidly expanding sector. Investors may view this as a long-term opportunity, despite the short-term price decline, suggesting that the fundamentals of the company remain strong even in a challenging market environment.
Trade with 70% Backtested Accuracy
Stop guessing "Should I Buy CRDO?" and start using high-conviction signals backed by rigorous historical data.
Sign up today to access powerful investing tools and make smarter, data-driven decisions.
Analyst Views on CRDO
Wall Street analysts forecast CRDO stock price to rise over the next 12 months. According to Wall Street analysts, the average 1-year price target for CRDO is 219.44 USD with a low forecast of 165.00 USD and a high forecast of 250.00 USD. However, analyst price targets are subjective and often lag stock prices, so investors should focus on the objective reasons behind analyst rating changes, which better reflect the company's fundamentals.
12 Analyst Rating
12 Buy
0 Hold
0 Sell
Strong Buy
Current: 98.060
Low
165.00
Averages
219.44
High
250.00
Current: 98.060
Low
165.00
Averages
219.44
High
250.00
About CRDO
Credo Technology Group Holding Ltd is a Cayman Islands-based holding company. The Company delivers high-speed solutions to break bandwidth barriers on every wired connection in the data infrastructure market. It provides high-speed connectivity solutions that deliver improved power efficiency as data rates and corresponding bandwidth requirements increase exponentially throughout the data infrastructure market. Its connectivity solutions are optimized for optical and electrical Ethernet applications, including the emerging 100 gigabits per second (G), 200G, 400G, 800G and the emerging 1.6 terabits per second (T) port markets. Its products are based on its Serializer/Deserializer (SerDes) and Digital Signal Processor (DSP) technologies. Its product families include integrated circuits (ICs) for the optical and line card markets, active electrical cables (AECs) and SerDes Chiplets. The Company’s intellectual property (IP) solutions consist primarily of SerDes IP licensing.
About the author
Emily J. Thompson
Emily J. Thompson, a Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) with 12 years in investment research, graduated with honors from the Wharton School. Specializing in industrial and technology stocks, she provides in-depth analysis for Intellectia’s earnings and market brief reports.
Comparative Analysis of VONG and IWO ETFs
- Cost Comparison: VONG's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, making VONG a more attractive option for cost-conscious investors, thereby saving more in long-term investments.
- Return Performance: As of January 25, 2026, VONG's one-year return is 12.6%, while IWO's is 15.21%; although IWO shows better performance, VONG's stability and lower fees may appeal to conservative investors.
- Risk Assessment: VONG's maximum drawdown is -32.72%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating that VONG exhibits stronger resilience during market volatility, making it suitable for risk-averse investors.
- Holding Structure: IWO diversifies across 1,102 small-cap stocks with evenly distributed top holdings, while VONG is heavily concentrated in large tech stocks like NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, which together account for over 30% of the fund's total weight, potentially leading to greater volatility risk.
See More
Comparative Analysis of VUG and IWO Growth ETFs
- Cost and Returns: VUG's expense ratio stands at 0.04%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, although IWO's one-year return of 15.21% surpasses VUG's 13.9%, prompting investors to weigh cost against potential returns.
- Risk and Volatility: VUG has a maximum drawdown of -35.61%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating that while IWO offers higher returns, it also carries greater risk, making it suitable for investors with a higher risk tolerance.
- Portfolio Composition: IWO's portfolio consists of 1,102 small-cap growth stocks evenly distributed across sectors like healthcare, industrials, and technology, whereas VUG is heavily concentrated in large-cap tech stocks, with three companies exceeding 10% weight, potentially leading to increased volatility.
- Market Performance Impact: Small-cap stocks in IWO may experience larger price swings during economic uncertainty, while VUG's heavy reliance on tech stocks could adversely affect its performance in market downturns, necessitating careful ETF selection based on market conditions.
See More
Comparative Analysis of QQQ and IWM ETFs
- Cost and Returns: QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.2% and a one-year return of 17.16%, while IWM's expense ratio is slightly lower at 0.19% with a return of 16%, indicating similar cost and return profiles that cater to different investor needs.
- Risk and Volatility: Over the past five years, QQQ experienced a maximum drawdown of 35.12%, compared to IWM's 31.91%, suggesting that QQQ carries higher risk during market fluctuations, necessitating careful risk assessment by investors.
- Portfolio Composition: IWM holds 1,956 small-cap stocks primarily in financials, industrials, and healthcare, offering broad diversification, whereas QQQ is heavily concentrated in technology stocks, with major holdings like NVIDIA and Apple, which may lead to increased volatility.
- Market Performance Impact: Given that IWM's portfolio consists of small-cap stocks, its price can fluctuate significantly, while QQQ's reliance on a few large tech companies means that adverse events affecting these firms could substantially impact the fund's performance.
See More
2026 Bull Market Faces New Challenges and Opportunities
- Market Dynamics Shift: The bull market in 2026, now in its fourth year, is seeing core drivers like AI supremacy being supplanted by a revival of the Old Economy, indicating a search for new growth catalysts to sustain the upward trend.
- Small-Cap Outperformance: The Russell 2000 has outperformed since the start of the year, reflecting pent-up demand for lagging, lower-quality stocks rather than a robust economic recovery, highlighting the complexity of market sentiment.
- Tech Valuation Pressure: With Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta ramping up data center capex, the Nasdaq 100's forward price-to-free-cash-flow ratio has surged from 24 at the end of 2023 to 32, suggesting a waning confidence in tech stocks.
- Investor Sentiment Optimism: Despite the optimistic market sentiment and record retail investor engagement, excessive confidence could pose volatility risks in the future, especially amid potential economic uncertainties.
See More
Comparison of MGK and IWO Growth ETFs
- Cost and Yield Comparison: MGK's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, although IWO offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.56%, making it more appealing for income-seeking investors.
- Risk and Return Analysis: Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating greater volatility in IWO, despite the higher growth potential of small-cap stocks.
- Portfolio Composition Differences: MGK consists of only 60 stocks, with 55% in technology, primarily holding giants like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, while IWO provides exposure to over 1,000 small-cap stocks across various sectors, particularly healthcare and technology.
- Market Strategy Impact: MGK's focus on mega-cap growth stocks has resulted in higher total returns over the past five years, showcasing its resilience against market fluctuations, while IWO offers broader diversification, appealing to investors with a higher risk tolerance.
See More
VOOG vs IWO: Fee, Return, and Risk Analysis
- Cost Comparison: VOOG's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, making VOOG more appealing to cost-conscious investors and potentially attracting more capital inflows.
- Return Performance: As of January 25, 2026, VOOG boasts a 1-year return of 16.16%, surpassing IWO's 15.31%, indicating superior performance over the past year and enhancing its competitive position in the market.
- Risk Assessment: VOOG's maximum drawdown is -32.74%, notably better than IWO's -42.02%, suggesting that VOOG exhibits higher stability during market volatility, making it suitable for risk-averse investors.
- Portfolio Composition: VOOG's portfolio is heavily weighted with nearly 50% in technology stocks, while IWO tracks 1,098 small-cap growth stocks primarily in healthcare and technology, highlighting significant strategic differences in their investment approaches.
See More
Comparative Analysis of VONG and IWO ETFs
- Cost Comparison: VONG's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, making VONG a more attractive option for cost-conscious investors, thereby saving more in long-term investments.
- Return Performance: As of January 25, 2026, VONG's one-year return is 12.6%, while IWO's is 15.21%; although IWO shows better performance, VONG's stability and lower fees may appeal to conservative investors.
- Risk Assessment: VONG's maximum drawdown is -32.72%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating that VONG exhibits stronger resilience during market volatility, making it suitable for risk-averse investors.
- Holding Structure: IWO diversifies across 1,102 small-cap stocks with evenly distributed top holdings, while VONG is heavily concentrated in large tech stocks like NVIDIA, Apple, and Microsoft, which together account for over 30% of the fund's total weight, potentially leading to greater volatility risk.
See More
Comparative Analysis of VUG and IWO Growth ETFs
- Cost and Returns: VUG's expense ratio stands at 0.04%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, although IWO's one-year return of 15.21% surpasses VUG's 13.9%, prompting investors to weigh cost against potential returns.
- Risk and Volatility: VUG has a maximum drawdown of -35.61%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating that while IWO offers higher returns, it also carries greater risk, making it suitable for investors with a higher risk tolerance.
- Portfolio Composition: IWO's portfolio consists of 1,102 small-cap growth stocks evenly distributed across sectors like healthcare, industrials, and technology, whereas VUG is heavily concentrated in large-cap tech stocks, with three companies exceeding 10% weight, potentially leading to increased volatility.
- Market Performance Impact: Small-cap stocks in IWO may experience larger price swings during economic uncertainty, while VUG's heavy reliance on tech stocks could adversely affect its performance in market downturns, necessitating careful ETF selection based on market conditions.
See More
Comparative Analysis of QQQ and IWM ETFs
- Cost and Returns: QQQ has an expense ratio of 0.2% and a one-year return of 17.16%, while IWM's expense ratio is slightly lower at 0.19% with a return of 16%, indicating similar cost and return profiles that cater to different investor needs.
- Risk and Volatility: Over the past five years, QQQ experienced a maximum drawdown of 35.12%, compared to IWM's 31.91%, suggesting that QQQ carries higher risk during market fluctuations, necessitating careful risk assessment by investors.
- Portfolio Composition: IWM holds 1,956 small-cap stocks primarily in financials, industrials, and healthcare, offering broad diversification, whereas QQQ is heavily concentrated in technology stocks, with major holdings like NVIDIA and Apple, which may lead to increased volatility.
- Market Performance Impact: Given that IWM's portfolio consists of small-cap stocks, its price can fluctuate significantly, while QQQ's reliance on a few large tech companies means that adverse events affecting these firms could substantially impact the fund's performance.
See More
2026 Bull Market Faces New Challenges and Opportunities
- Market Dynamics Shift: The bull market in 2026, now in its fourth year, is seeing core drivers like AI supremacy being supplanted by a revival of the Old Economy, indicating a search for new growth catalysts to sustain the upward trend.
- Small-Cap Outperformance: The Russell 2000 has outperformed since the start of the year, reflecting pent-up demand for lagging, lower-quality stocks rather than a robust economic recovery, highlighting the complexity of market sentiment.
- Tech Valuation Pressure: With Alphabet, Microsoft, and Meta ramping up data center capex, the Nasdaq 100's forward price-to-free-cash-flow ratio has surged from 24 at the end of 2023 to 32, suggesting a waning confidence in tech stocks.
- Investor Sentiment Optimism: Despite the optimistic market sentiment and record retail investor engagement, excessive confidence could pose volatility risks in the future, especially amid potential economic uncertainties.
See More
Comparison of MGK and IWO Growth ETFs
- Cost and Yield Comparison: MGK's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, although IWO offers a slightly higher dividend yield of 0.56%, making it more appealing for income-seeking investors.
- Risk and Return Analysis: Over the past five years, MGK experienced a maximum drawdown of -36.02%, compared to IWO's -42.02%, indicating greater volatility in IWO, despite the higher growth potential of small-cap stocks.
- Portfolio Composition Differences: MGK consists of only 60 stocks, with 55% in technology, primarily holding giants like Nvidia, Apple, and Microsoft, while IWO provides exposure to over 1,000 small-cap stocks across various sectors, particularly healthcare and technology.
- Market Strategy Impact: MGK's focus on mega-cap growth stocks has resulted in higher total returns over the past five years, showcasing its resilience against market fluctuations, while IWO offers broader diversification, appealing to investors with a higher risk tolerance.
See More
VOOG vs IWO: Fee, Return, and Risk Analysis
- Cost Comparison: VOOG's expense ratio stands at 0.07%, significantly lower than IWO's 0.24%, making VOOG more appealing to cost-conscious investors and potentially attracting more capital inflows.
- Return Performance: As of January 25, 2026, VOOG boasts a 1-year return of 16.16%, surpassing IWO's 15.31%, indicating superior performance over the past year and enhancing its competitive position in the market.
- Risk Assessment: VOOG's maximum drawdown is -32.74%, notably better than IWO's -42.02%, suggesting that VOOG exhibits higher stability during market volatility, making it suitable for risk-averse investors.
- Portfolio Composition: VOOG's portfolio is heavily weighted with nearly 50% in technology stocks, while IWO tracks 1,098 small-cap growth stocks primarily in healthcare and technology, highlighting significant strategic differences in their investment approaches.
See More
