BILL vs CWAN Stock Comparison
BILL currently leads CWAN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while CWAN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BILL and CWAN?
BILL leads the current stock comparison as Bill.com Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bill.com Holdings, Inc. vs Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.
BILL leads
BILL leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from CWAN.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BILL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bill.com Holdings, Inc.
Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BILL over CWAN, 64 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. BILL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while CWAN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BILL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BILL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. BILL lead: Reversed — CWAN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BILL now leads by 14.
Compare Bill.com Holdings, Inc. and Clearwater Analytics Holdings, 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 BILL and CWAN 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.
- Value67 vs 36BILL +31
- Risk Resilience53 vs 74CWAN +21
- Quality52 vs 53Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BILL. BILL’s edge is concentrated in value; CWAN keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +15
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
BILL's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BILL and CWAN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BILL (Bill.com Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
CWAN (Clearwater Analytics Holdings, 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
BILLBILL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CWANCWAN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BILLBILL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CWANCWAN on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
BILLBILL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | BILL | CWAN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.3% | 0% | BILL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +48% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BILL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BILL | 64 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | BILLon balance | revenue growth 7.3% vs 1.7%; EPS growth -250% vs 76.5%; TTM ROE -0.3% vs -2.4%; gross margin 80.9% vs 66%; operating margin 1.1% vs -0.7% — BILL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BILL | Value 67 vs 36 |
| Technicals | BILL | Price vs 50-day 4.4% vs 1.1%; vs 200-day 14.9% vs 10.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CWAN | Risk Resilience 53 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | BILL | Target upside 6.3% vs 0% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BILL and CWAN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 BILL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BILL lead: Reversed — CWAN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BILL now leads by 14.
- Today
- BILL +14
- 64 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- BILL +9
- 59 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- CWAN +1
- 49 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- BILL +10
- 60 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 1 when BILL moved ahead of CWAN.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BILL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.90%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.73%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
BILL 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 4 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.16%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1CWAN closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BILL's edge.
- 2CWAN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3BILL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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
BILL leads on balance| Metric | BILL | CWAN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.3% | 1.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -250% | 76.5% |
| Gross margin | 80.9% | 66% |
| Operating margin | 1.1% | -0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -0.3% | -2.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.54 | 0.42 |
Performance
BILL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BILL | CWAN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.6% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.6% | 0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.2% | 5.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.4% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | -10% | 1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | 15.5% |
Technicals
BILL has the stronger structure| Metric | BILL | CWAN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 76.1 | 63.5 |
| ADX (14) | 16.7 | 25.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.4% | 1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.9% | 10.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.3% | 4.4% |
Risk
CWAN is the more resilient| Metric | BILL | CWAN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 0.44 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.17 | 1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.32 | 1.42 |
| Max drawdown | -43.2% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -12.8% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.9% | 28.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BILL or CWAN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BILL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against CWAN's 50. The edge comes from value. CWAN 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 BILL or CWAN the better buy right now?
BILL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BILL over CWAN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BILL leads Value by 31 points; CWAN leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BILL or CWAN?
Analyst price targets imply +6.3% upside for BILL and 0% for CWAN, so the Street currently favors BILL. 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, BILL or CWAN?
BILL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BILL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, BILL or CWAN?
CWAN 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, BILL or CWAN?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, BILL or CWAN?
CWAN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CWAN on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 BILL more profitable than CWAN?
BILL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 80.9% vs 66%; operating margin 1.1% vs -0.7%; ttm roe -0.3% vs -2.4%.
Is BILL's lead over CWAN getting stronger or weaker?
BILL lead: Reversed — CWAN led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BILL now leads by 14. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-01, when BILL moved ahead of CWAN.
What would change the BILL vs CWAN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CWAN closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BILL's edge; CWAN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; BILL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 BILL and CWAN?
BILL: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CWAN: No active signals. 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 BILL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BILL and CWAN 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.