CACI vs GD Stock Comparison
Compare CACI and GD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CACI and GD?
CACI leads the current stock comparison as CACI International Inc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CACI International Inc vs General Dynamics Corporation
CACI leads
CACI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors GD on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CACI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CACI International Inc
General Dynamics Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CACI over GD, 47 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. CACI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while GD 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 GD. 3 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CACI International Inc and General Dynamics Corporation 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 GD 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.
- Momentum39 vs 13CACI +26
- Quality34 vs 49GD +15
- Risk Resilience48 vs 61GD +13
- Value67 vs 60CACI +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CACI. CACI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; GD 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
No factor moved materially.
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 GD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CACI (CACI International Inc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
GD (General Dynamics Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
CACICACI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CACICACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
CACICACI on the Momentum factor, by 26 points.
Lower downside
GDGD on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
GDGD 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 GD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CACI | GD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +16.6% | GD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +56.6% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 7 | 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 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 | CACIon balance | revenue growth 15.2% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 20% vs 3.4%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 17.4%; gross margin 21.6% vs 15.4%; operating margin 9.6% vs 10.3% — CACI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CACI | Value 67 vs 60 |
| Technicals | CACI | Price vs 50-day 10.5% vs -5.9%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs -0.1% |
| Risk Resilience | GD | Risk Resilience 48 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | GD | Target upside 8.6% vs 16.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CACI and GD 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CACI +2
- 47 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CACI +1
- 60 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- GD +12
- 49 vs 61
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when GD moved ahead of CACI.
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, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.62%)
- 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 +0.47%, 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.
- 1GD closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CACI's edge.
- 2GD'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.
- 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
CACI leads on balance| Metric | CACI | GD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.2% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 20% | 3.4% |
| Gross margin | 21.6% | 15.4% |
| Operating margin | 9.6% | 10.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 17.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.2 | 0.35 |
Performance
CACI leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CACI | GD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.2% | -10% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.7% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.2% | 0.1% |
| Year to date | 17.1% | 5.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31.6% | 9.8% |
Technicals
CACI has the stronger structure| Metric | CACI | GD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 42.6 | 17.8 |
| ADX (14) | 24.1 | 36.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.5% | -5.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | -0.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 31.3% | 15.3% |
Risk
GD is the more resilient| Metric | CACI | GD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 0.43 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.37 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.41 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -33.4% | -15.2% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -10.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.2% | 22.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CACI or GD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CACI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against GD's 45. The edge comes from momentum and value. GD 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 GD the better buy right now?
CACI 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CACI over GD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CACI leads Momentum by 26 points; GD leads Quality by 15 points; GD leads Risk Resilience by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CACI or GD?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for CACI and +16.6% for GD, so the Street currently favors GD. 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 GD?
CACI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 GD?
CACI 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 GD?
CACI on the Momentum factor, by 26 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 GD?
GD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GD on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 GD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.6% vs 15.4%; operating margin 9.6% vs 10.3%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 17.4%. CACI leads on one measure and GD 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 GD getting stronger or weaker?
CACI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when GD moved ahead of CACI.
What would change the CACI vs GD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GD closes the Momentum gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CACI's edge; GD'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; 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 CACI and GD?
CACI: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GD: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 GD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CACI and GD 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.