AMT vs CCI Stock Comparison
Compare AMT and CCI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMT and CCI?
AMT leads the current stock comparison as American Tower Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
American Tower Corporation vs Crown Castle Inc.
AMT leads
AMT leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support AMT, and its lead is narrowing.
American Tower Corporation
Crown Castle Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMT over CCI, 54 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CCI holds the stronger risk resilience profile. AMT also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare American Tower Corporation and Crown Castle Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare AMT and CCI 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.
- Momentum49 vs 35AMT +14
- Quality70 vs 58AMT +12
- Risk Resilience49 vs 55CCI +6
- Value45 vs 48Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor AMT. AMT’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CCI keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -10
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
AMT's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMT and CCI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMT (American Tower Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CCI (Crown Castle Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
AMTAMT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCICCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
AMTAMT on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
CCICCI on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | AMT | CCI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.4% | +18.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +24.9% | +12.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMT. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMT | 54 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | AMTon balance | revenue growth 0.4% vs -0.2%; EPS growth 1.6% vs 108.8%; TTM ROE 90.2% vs -51.7%; gross margin 73.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 44.4% vs 47.7% — AMT takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 45 vs 48 |
| Technicals | AMT | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day -2.6% vs -12.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CCI | Risk Resilience 49 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 17.4% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMT and CCI and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 AMT.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMT +5
- 54 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- AMT +5
- 57 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- AMT +9
- 55 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AMT +4
- 46 vs 42
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 19 when AMT moved ahead of CCI.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.57%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.99%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CCI 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.82%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.37%, 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.
- 1CCI closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMT's edge.
- 2CCI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate AMT's advantage entirely.
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
AMT leads on balance| Metric | AMT | CCI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.6% | 108.8% |
| Gross margin | 73.2% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 44.4% | 47.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 90.2% | -51.7% |
| Debt to equity | 12.09 | -7.16 |
Performance
AMT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | AMT | CCI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.5% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.1% | -19.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.4% | -15.6% |
| Year to date | -1.5% | -16.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.7% | -21.3% |
Technicals
AMT has the stronger structure| Metric | AMT | CCI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 42.2 |
| ADX (14) | 9.5 | 17.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.6% | -12.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.7% | 20.4% |
Risk
CCI is the more resilient| Metric | AMT | CCI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.15 | 0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.47 | -0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.7 | -1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -17.8% | -25.6% |
| Current drawdown | -12.3% | -25.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.3% | 29.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMT or CCI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against CCI's 49. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CCI is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 AMT or CCI the better buy right now?
AMT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMT over CCI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMT leads Momentum by 14 points; AMT leads Quality by 12 points; CCI leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMT or CCI?
Analyst price targets imply +17.4% upside for AMT and +18.4% for CCI. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, AMT or CCI?
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, AMT or CCI?
CCI 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, AMT or CCI?
AMT on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, AMT or CCI?
CCI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCI on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 AMT more profitable than CCI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 73.2% vs 63.2%; operating margin 44.4% vs 47.7%; ttm roe 90.2% vs -51.7%. AMT leads on two measures and CCI 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 AMT's lead over CCI getting stronger or weaker?
AMT lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-19, when AMT moved ahead of CCI.
What would change the AMT vs CCI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCI closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMT's edge; CCI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMT starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate AMT's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AMT and CCI?
AMT: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. CCI: 2 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 AMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CCI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMT and CCI 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.