CBOE vs CG Stock Comparison
Compare CBOE and CG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CBOE and CG?
CBOE leads the current stock comparison as Cboe Global Markets, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cboe Global Markets, Inc. vs The Carlyle Group Inc.
CBOE leads
CBOE leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CG on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CBOE, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cboe Global Markets, Inc.
The Carlyle Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CBOE over CG, 50 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. CBOE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CG holds the stronger value profile. CBOE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CBOE today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CBOE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cboe Global Markets, Inc. and The Carlyle Group 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 CBOE and CG 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.
- Quality75 vs 36CBOE +39
- Momentum50 vs 23CBOE +27
- Risk Resilience49 vs 28CBOE +21
- Value26 vs 46CG +20
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CBOE. CBOE’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CG keeps a meaningful value 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 -11
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CBOE's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CBOE and CG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CBOE (Cboe Global Markets, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CG (The Carlyle Group Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41% against 35.7%.
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
CBOECBOE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CGCG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CGCG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
CBOECBOE on the Momentum factor, by 27 points.
Lower downside
CBOECBOE on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
CGCG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CBOE, analyst targets favor CG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CBOE | CG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.4% | +33.8% | CG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +41.9% | +44.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CBOE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CBOE | 50 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CBOEon balance | revenue growth 13.4% vs 5.1%; EPS growth -8.4% vs 202.7%; TTM ROE 25.7% vs 6.1%; gross margin 52.3% vs 70.7%; operating margin 35.2% vs 19.1% — CBOE takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CG | Value 26 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CBOE | Price vs 50-day -2.2% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day 0.6% vs -15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CBOE | Risk Resilience 49 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | CG | Target upside 16.4% vs 33.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CBOE and CG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CBOE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CBOE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CBOE +15
- 50 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CBOE +12
- 53 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- CBOE +4
- 49 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- CBOE +7
- 45 vs 38
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 23 when CBOE moved ahead of CG.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.55%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.76%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CBOE 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -2.24%, AIQ -3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.69%, 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.
- 1CG closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CBOE's edge.
- 2CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CBOE'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
CBOE leads on balance| Metric | CBOE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.4% | 5.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.4% | 202.7% |
| Gross margin | 52.3% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 35.2% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.7% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 1.98 |
Performance
CBOE leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CBOE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.3% | -8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.5% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.2% | -8.5% |
| Year to date | 14.5% | -27.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 22.7% | -31.7% |
Technicals
CBOE has the stronger structure| Metric | CBOE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.3 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.2% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.6% | -15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.7% | 41% |
Risk
CBOE is the more resilient| Metric | CBOE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.33 | 1.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.69 | -0.95 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.88 | -1.43 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21.6% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.4% | 37.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -4.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CBOE or CG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CBOE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 50 against CG's 35. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CG is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CBOE or CG the better buy right now?
CBOE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CBOE over CG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CBOE leads Quality by 39 points; CBOE leads Momentum by 27 points; CBOE leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CBOE or CG?
Analyst price targets imply +16.4% upside for CBOE and +33.8% for CG, so the Street currently favors CG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CBOE. 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, CBOE or CG?
CG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, CBOE or CG?
CG 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, CBOE or CG?
CBOE on the Momentum factor, by 27 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, CBOE or CG?
CBOE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CBOE 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 CBOE more profitable than CG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.3% vs 70.7%; operating margin 35.2% vs 19.1%; ttm roe 25.7% vs 6.1%. CBOE leads on two measures and CG on one measure, 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 CBOE's lead over CG getting stronger or weaker?
CBOE lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 15 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-23, when CBOE moved ahead of CG.
What would change the CBOE vs CG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CG closes the Quality gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CBOE's edge; CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CBOE'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 CBOE and CG?
CBOE: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CG: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 CBOE is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CBOE and CG 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.