CACI vs DRS Stock Comparison
Compare CACI and DRS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CACI and DRS?
CACI leads the current stock comparison as CACI International Inc, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CACI International Inc vs Leonardo DRS, Inc.
CACI leads
CACI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DRS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CACI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CACI International Inc
Leonardo DRS, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CACI over DRS, 47 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. CACI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while DRS holds the stronger quality profile. CACI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DRS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CACI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CACI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CACI International Inc and Leonardo DRS, 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 CACI and DRS 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.
- Quality34 vs 52DRS +18
- Value67 vs 51CACI +16
- Momentum39 vs 24CACI +15
- Risk Resilience48 vs 53DRS +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CACI. CACI’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; DRS keeps a meaningful quality 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 +10
New signals
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.32%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
CACI's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CACI and DRS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CACI (CACI International Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
DRS (Leonardo DRS, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
CACICACI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DRSDRS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CACICACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
CACICACI on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
DRSDRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
DRSDRS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CACI, analyst targets favor DRS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CACI | DRS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +49.7% | DRS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CACI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 47 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | DRSon balance | revenue growth 15.2% vs 7.9%; EPS growth 20% vs 39.1%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 11.8%; gross margin 21.6% vs 24.9%; operating margin 9.6% vs 10.5% — DRS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CACI | Value 67 vs 51 |
| Technicals | CACI | Price vs 50-day 10.5% vs -16.2%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs -13.4% |
| Risk Resilience | DRS | Risk Resilience 48 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | DRS | Target upside 8.6% vs 49.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CACI and DRS 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CACI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CACI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CACI +2
- 47 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- CACI +2
- 47 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- CACI +16
- 60 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- DRS +1
- 49 vs 50
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when CACI moved ahead of DRS.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.53%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CACI 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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.46%, AIQ +2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.66%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1DRS closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CACI's edge.
- 2DRS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CACI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CACI'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
DRS leads on balance| Metric | CACI | DRS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.2% | 7.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20% | 39.1% |
| Gross margin | 21.6% | 24.9% |
| Operating margin | 9.6% | 10.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 11.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.2 | 0.1 |
Performance
CACI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CACI | DRS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -19.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.7% | -21.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.2% | -21.3% |
| Year to date | 17.1% | 6.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | -11.5% |
Technicals
CACI has the stronger structure| Metric | CACI | DRS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.6 | 18.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 40.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.5% | -16.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | -13.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.3% | 27% |
Risk
DRS is the more resilient| Metric | CACI | DRS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | -0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.41 | -0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -33.4% | -28.4% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -26.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.2% | 40.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CACI or DRS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CACI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against DRS's 45. The edge comes from value and momentum. DRS is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CACI or DRS the better buy right now?
CACI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CACI over DRS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DRS leads Quality by 18 points; CACI leads Value by 16 points; CACI leads Momentum by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CACI or DRS?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for CACI and +49.7% for DRS, so the Street currently favors DRS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CACI. 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, CACI or DRS?
CACI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, CACI or DRS?
DRS 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, CACI or DRS?
CACI on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, CACI or DRS?
DRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 CACI more profitable than DRS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.6% vs 24.9%; operating margin 9.6% vs 10.5%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 11.8%. CACI leads on one measure and DRS on two measures, 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 CACI's lead over DRS getting stronger or weaker?
CACI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 2 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when CACI moved ahead of DRS.
What would change the CACI vs DRS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DRS closes the Value gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to CACI's edge; DRS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CACI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate CACI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CACI and DRS?
CACI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. DRS: 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 CACI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DRS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CACI and DRS 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.