ALHC vs CI Stock Comparison
Alignment Healthcare, Inc. vs Cigna Corporation
CI leads
CI leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ALHC on target upside.
Stable: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CI, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Alignment Healthcare, Inc.
Cigna Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CI over ALHC, 56 versus 42 as of Sep 5, 2026. CI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum. CI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ALHC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CI today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alignment Healthcare, Inc. and Cigna Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare ALHC and CI against another ticker
Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.
AIQ Factor Divergence
Where the two separate, on the four dimensions behind the AIQ Score. Bars read outward from a shared zero: further from the centre is a wider gap.
- Value30%42 vs 72CI +30
- Momentum25%44 vs 60CI +16
- Quality30%37 vs 39Even
- Risk Resilience15%51 vs 52Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CI. CI’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -9
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
CI's lead narrowed by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALHC and CI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CI (Cigna Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ALHC (Alignment Healthcare, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.6% against 21%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
Which one fits your objective
The same two names rank differently depending on what you are optimizing for. All six reads are shown at once — none of them is hidden behind a toggle.
Balanced
CICI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
ALHCALHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CICI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
CICI on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
CICI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ALHCALHC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CI, analyst targets favor ALHC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALHC | CI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +44.8% | +19.5% | ALHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +29% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CI | 42 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | ALHCon balance | revenue growth 8.1% vs 4.6%; TTM ROE 20% vs 15.2%; gross margin 12.5% vs 11.7%; operating margin 1.2% vs 3.5% — ALHC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CI | Value 42 vs 72 |
| Technicals | CI | Price vs 50-day -21.4% vs -0.3%; vs 200-day -28.3% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 51 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | ALHC | Target upside 44.8% vs 19.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALHC and CI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
Stability combines the score gap, how broadly the evidence agrees, how steady the lead has been across daily snapshots, the current signal state on both names, and analyst dispersion on CI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4CI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CI +14
- 42 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- CI +11
- 41 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CI +11
- 37 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ALHC +5
- 51 vs 46
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Jul 7 when CI moved ahead of ALHC.
AIQ Signal Divergence
Only the signals that bear on the head-to-head. A conflicted name is carrying bullish and bearish rules at the same time — the technical evidence is not pointing one way.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.62%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.39%)
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ALHC is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.04%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.31%, AIQ -2 points).
What would flip this result
A state, not a forecast. These are the specific, observable changes that would reverse the verdict — not a price prediction.
- 1ALHC closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge.
- 2ALHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CI's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
The full evidence
Every number behind the verdict. The leader is called above each group so you are not left to solve it from the table.
Fundamentals
ALHC leads on balance| Metric | ALHC | CI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.1% | 4.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 223.7% | -0.2% |
| Gross margin | 12.5% | 11.7% |
| Operating margin | 1.2% | 3.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 20% | 15.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.25 | 0.75 |
Performance
CI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALHC | CI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.8% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -11.9% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -26.6% | 4% |
| Year to date | -31.4% | 2.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17% | -6% |
Technicals
CI has the stronger structure| Metric | ALHC | CI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.5 | 59.6 |
| ADX (14) | 21 | 9.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -21.4% | -0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -28.3% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.6% | 21% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ALHC | CI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.05 | -0.18 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.07 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -48% | -21.4% |
| Current drawdown | -44.9% | -9.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 61.8% | 32.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALHC or CI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 56 against ALHC's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. This is a systematic score, not a recommendation: it ranks the two on the same evidence, it does not know your holding period or tax position.
Is ALHC or CI the better buy right now?
CI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CI over ALHC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CI leads Value by 30 points; CI leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALHC or CI?
Analyst price targets imply +44.8% upside for ALHC and +19.5% for CI, so the Street currently favors ALHC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CI. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, ALHC or CI?
CI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points. The Value factor reads valuation relative to sector peers and to the company's own fundamental quality, so it is not the same as simply having the lower multiple.
Which has stronger growth, ALHC or CI?
ALHC on combined revenue and EPS growth. Growth here is measured on reported revenue and earnings, not on forward estimates — it describes what the businesses have delivered, not what the Street expects next.
Which has stronger momentum, ALHC or CI?
CI on the Momentum factor, by 16 points. Momentum carries 25% of the AIQ composite. It has documented persistence over three- to twelve-month horizons, which makes it a timing input rather than a reason to hold something indefinitely.
Which is riskier, ALHC or CI?
CI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ALHC more profitable than CI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 12.5% vs 11.7%; operating margin 1.2% vs 3.5%; ttm roe 20% vs 15.2%. ALHC leads on two measures and CI on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is CI's lead over ALHC getting stronger or weaker?
CI lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-07, when CI moved ahead of ALHC.
What would change the ALHC vs CI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ALHC closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge; ALHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CI's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ALHC and CI?
ALHC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CI: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. A conflicted state means bullish and bearish rules are active on the same name at once — the technical evidence is not pointing one way, and a decision taken on it carries more timing risk. The most decision-relevant rule on ALHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ALHC and CI with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). Sentiment is reported separately as SentimentPulse and is not folded into the composite. Scores refresh every trading day, and this page regenerates from the latest snapshot rather than being written once.
The verdict names a leader, states how broadly six independent evidence groups agree, and rates how durable that conclusion is given the score gap, its recent trajectory and the current signal state on both names.
How to use side-by-side comparison →This comparison is informational and educational, not investment advice. AIQ scores update daily; re-check after earnings, guidance or macro data that materially changes either name’s factor profile.