CATY vs CBSH Stock Comparison
Compare CATY and CBSH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CATY and CBSH?
CATY leads the current stock comparison as Cathay General Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cathay General Bancorp vs Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
CATY leads
CATY leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value. Wall Street currently favors CBSH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CATY, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cathay General Bancorp
Commerce Bancshares, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CATY over CBSH, 58 versus 54 as of Sep 6, 2026. CATY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while CBSH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CATY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CBSH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CATY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CATY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cathay General Bancorp and Commerce Bancshares, 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 CATY and CBSH 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.
- Momentum25%50 vs 36CATY +14
- Risk Resilience15%66 vs 79CBSH +13
- Value30%52 vs 44CATY +8
- Quality30%67 vs 66Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CATY. CATY’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; CBSH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CATY's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CATY and CBSH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CATY (Cathay General Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
CBSH (Commerce Bancshares, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
CATYCATY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CATYCATY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CATYCATY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
CATYCATY on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
CBSHCBSH on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
CBSHCBSH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CATY, analyst targets favor CBSH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CATY | CBSH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.7% | +6.7% | CBSH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.2% | +14.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 4 | 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 CATY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CATY | 58 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CBSHon balance | revenue growth 6.9% vs -14.6%; EPS growth 6.2% vs 14.4%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 14.4%; gross margin 57.2% vs 80.2%; operating margin 33.2% vs 35% — CBSH takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CATY | Value 52 vs 44 |
| Technicals | CATY | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 13.7% vs 8.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CBSH | Risk Resilience 66 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | CBSH | Target upside -8.7% vs 6.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CATY and CBSH 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 4 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 CATY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CATY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CATY +4
- 58 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CBSH +1
- 53 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- CATY +2
- 65 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- CBSH +1
- 63 vs 64
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 27 when CATY moved ahead of CBSH.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.31%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CATY 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 +0.18%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.01%, 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.
- 1CBSH closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge.
- 2CBSH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
CBSH leads on balance| Metric | CATY | CBSH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | -14.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 14.4% |
| Gross margin | 57.2% | 80.2% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 35% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 14.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.56 |
Performance
CATY leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CATY | CBSH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | -1.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.7% | 10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.3% | 14.2% |
| Year to date | 29.6% | 11.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.8% | -0.1% |
Technicals
CATY has the stronger structure| Metric | CATY | CBSH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 36.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.7% | 8.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 12% |
Risk
CBSH is the more resilient| Metric | CATY | CBSH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.64 | 0.35 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | -0.15 |
| Max drawdown | -13% | -19.1% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -3.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.9% | 20.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CATY or CBSH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CATY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against CBSH's 54. The edge comes from momentum and value. CBSH 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 CATY or CBSH the better buy right now?
CATY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CATY over CBSH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CATY leads Momentum by 14 points; CBSH leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; CATY leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CATY or CBSH?
Analyst price targets imply -8.7% upside for CATY and +6.7% for CBSH, so the Street currently favors CBSH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CATY. 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, CATY or CBSH?
CATY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CATY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, CATY or CBSH?
CATY 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, CATY or CBSH?
CATY on the Momentum factor, by 14 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CATY or CBSH?
CBSH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CBSH on Risk Resilience, by 13 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CATY more profitable than CBSH?
CBSH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.2% vs 80.2%; operating margin 33.2% vs 35%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 14.4%.
Is CATY's lead over CBSH getting stronger or weaker?
CATY lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-27, when CATY moved ahead of CBSH.
What would change the CATY vs CBSH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CBSH closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge; CBSH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CATY and CBSH?
CATY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CBSH: 1 bullish / 1 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 CATY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CBSH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CATY and CBSH with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.