ALRM vs CHGG Stock Comparison
ALRM currently leads CHGG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 70 vs 47. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between ALRM and CHGG?
ALRM leads the current stock comparison as Alarm.com Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. vs Chegg, Inc.
ALRM leads
ALRM leads by 23 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 15 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CHGG on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support ALRM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.
Chegg, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ALRM over CHGG, 70 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. ALRM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum. ALRM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CHGG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALRM today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. and Chegg, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare ALRM and CHGG 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.
- Risk Resilience70 vs 25ALRM +45
- Momentum80 vs 36ALRM +44
- Quality63 vs 50ALRM +13
- Value67 vs 65Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor ALRM. ALRM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
ALRM's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ALRM and CHGG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ALRM (Alarm.com Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
CHGG (Chegg, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 55.8% against 24.2%.
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
ALRMALRM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ALRMALRM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
ALRMALRM on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
ALRMALRM on Risk Resilience, by 45 points.
Analyst upside
CHGGCHGG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ALRM, analyst targets favor CHGG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ALRM | CHGG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -7.5% | +113.5% | CHGG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ALRM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ALRM | 70 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | ALRM | revenue growth 4.7% vs -18%; EPS growth 2.1% vs -16%; TTM ROE 13.9% vs -41.9%; gross margin 63.4% vs 58.7% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 67 vs 65 |
| Technicals | ALRM | Price vs 50-day 14.5% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day 30% vs -19.3% |
| Risk Resilience | ALRM | Risk Resilience 70 vs 25 |
| Analyst expectations | CHGG | Target upside -7.5% vs 113.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ALRM and CHGG 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 23 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
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 ALRM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ALRM +23
- 70 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- ALRM +22
- 70 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- ALRM +15
- 63 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ALRM +20
- 65 vs 45
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ALRM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CHGG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.21%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.58%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
ALRM leads the comparison while carrying a conflicted signal state, which is one reason the stability rating is not higher.
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 -2.52%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.53%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1CHGG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge.
- 2CHGG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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
ALRM leads on balance| Metric | ALRM | CHGG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.7% | -18% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.1% | -16% |
| Gross margin | 63.4% | 58.7% |
| Operating margin | 13% | -0.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.9% | -41.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.43 |
Performance
ALRM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ALRM | CHGG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 19.2% | -3.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.7% | -33.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 43.9% | -38.9% |
| Year to date | 25.4% | -25% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.4% | -49.8% |
Technicals
ALRM has the stronger structure| Metric | ALRM | CHGG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 93.8 | 43.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.1 | 14.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.5% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 30% | -19.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 55.8% |
Risk
ALRM is the more resilient| Metric | ALRM | CHGG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.41 | 2.57 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.04 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -20.7% | -64% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -55% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.5% | 105.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -9.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ALRM or CHGG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ALRM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 70 against CHGG's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 ALRM or CHGG the better buy right now?
ALRM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 ALRM over CHGG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ALRM leads Risk Resilience by 45 points; ALRM leads Momentum by 44 points; ALRM leads Quality by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ALRM or CHGG?
Analyst price targets imply -7.5% upside for ALRM and +113.5% for CHGG, so the Street currently favors CHGG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ALRM. 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, ALRM or CHGG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, ALRM or CHGG?
ALRM 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, ALRM or CHGG?
ALRM on the Momentum factor, by 44 points. Momentum is one of the four weighted factors in 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, ALRM or CHGG?
ALRM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ALRM on Risk Resilience, by 45 points. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is ALRM more profitable than CHGG?
ALRM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.4% vs 58.7%; operating margin 13% vs -0.8%; ttm roe 13.9% vs -41.9%.
Is ALRM's lead over CHGG getting stronger or weaker?
ALRM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 15 to 23 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ALRM vs CHGG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHGG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 45 points behind, the largest single contributor to ALRM's edge; CHGG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ALRM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about ALRM and CHGG?
ALRM: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CHGG: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 ALRM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CHGG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ALRM and CHGG with others
Continue your research
This page answers which of the two. These answer the questions on either side of it.
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk, each carrying a fixed weight. 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.