CATY vs CHCO Stock Comparison
Compare CATY and CHCO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CATY and CHCO?
CATY leads the current stock comparison as Cathay General Bancorp, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cathay General Bancorp vs City Holding Company
CATY leads
CATY leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CATY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cathay General Bancorp
City Holding Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CATY over CHCO, 58 versus 55 as of Sep 6, 2026. CATY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while CHCO holds the stronger momentum profile. CATY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CATY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CATY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cathay General Bancorp and City Holding Company 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 CHCO 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.
- Value30%52 vs 37CATY +15
- Momentum25%50 vs 60CHCO +10
- Risk Resilience15%66 vs 59CATY +7
- Quality30%67 vs 67Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CATY. CATY’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; CHCO keeps a meaningful momentum 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 CHCO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CATY (Cathay General Bancorp): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
CHCO (City Holding Company): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals.
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 15 points.
Momentum
CHCOCHCO on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
CATYCATY on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
CATYCATY 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 | CATY | CHCO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.7% | -10.7% | CATY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.2% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 1 | 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 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 | Even | 58 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CHCOon balance | revenue growth 6.9% vs -18.5%; EPS growth 6.2% vs 6.8%; TTM ROE 11.7% vs 16.4%; gross margin 57.2% vs 78.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 38% — CHCO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CATY | Value 52 vs 37 |
| Technicals | CHCO | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 3.3%; vs 200-day 13.7% vs 13.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CATY | Risk Resilience 66 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CATY | Target upside -8.7% vs -10.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CATY and CHCO 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 3 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)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CATY +3
- 58 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CATY +1
- 53 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CATY +6
- 65 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- CATY +4
- 63 vs 59
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.26%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium 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 +0.43%, 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.
- 1CHCO closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge.
- 2CHCO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate CATY'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
CHCO leads on balance| Metric | CATY | CHCO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.9% | -18.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.2% | 6.8% |
| Gross margin | 57.2% | 78.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 38% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.7% | 16.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.05 | 0.65 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CATY | CHCO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.1% | 0.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.7% | 14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.3% | 20.6% |
| Year to date | 29.6% | 22.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 25.8% | 13.3% |
Technicals
CHCO has the stronger structure| Metric | CATY | CHCO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.1 | 49.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 18.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.7% | 13.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.2% | 12.4% |
Risk
CATY is the more resilient| Metric | CATY | CHCO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.64 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.87 | 0.49 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.16 | 0.74 |
| Max drawdown | -13% | -10.4% |
| Current drawdown | -3.5% | -1.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.9% | 18.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CATY or CHCO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CATY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against CHCO's 55. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. CHCO is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CHCO 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CATY over CHCO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CATY leads Value by 15 points; CHCO leads Momentum by 10 points; CATY leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CATY or CHCO?
Analyst price targets imply -8.7% upside for CATY and -10.7% for CHCO, so the Street currently favors CATY. 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, CATY or CHCO?
CATY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CATY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 CHCO?
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 CHCO?
CHCO on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 CHCO?
CATY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CATY on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 CHCO?
CHCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.2% vs 78.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 38%; ttm roe 11.7% vs 16.4%.
Is CATY's lead over CHCO getting stronger or weaker?
CATY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CATY vs CHCO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHCO closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CATY's edge; CHCO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CATY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate CATY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CATY and CHCO?
CATY: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHCO: 4 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 CHCO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CATY and CHCO 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.