CBRE vs CG Stock Comparison
Compare CBRE and CG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CBRE and CG?
CBRE leads the current stock comparison as CBRE Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CBRE Group, Inc. vs The Carlyle Group Inc.
CBRE leads
CBRE leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value. Wall Street currently favors CG on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CBRE, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CBRE Group, Inc.
The Carlyle Group Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CBRE over CG, 42 versus 35 as of Sep 11, 2026. CBRE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. CBRE 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 CBRE today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CBRE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CBRE Group, 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 CBRE 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.
- Risk Resilience49 vs 28CBRE +21
- Value65 vs 46CBRE +19
- Momentum20 vs 23Even
- Quality34 vs 36Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CBRE. CBRE’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
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 -1
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CBRE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CBRE and CG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CBRE (CBRE Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CG (The Carlyle Group Inc.): the counter-case, on 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
CBRECBRE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CGCG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CBRECBRE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CBRECBRE 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 CBRE, analyst targets favor CG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CBRE | CG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +26% | +33.8% | CG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.9% | +44.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 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 CBRE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CBRE | 42 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CGon balance | revenue growth 6.6% vs 5.1%; EPS growth -36.1% vs 202.7%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 6.1%; gross margin 17.7% vs 70.7%; operating margin 3.6% vs 19.1% — CG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CBRE | Value 65 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CBRE | Price vs 50-day -3.1% vs -9.4%; vs 200-day -6.1% vs -15.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CBRE | Risk Resilience 49 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | CG | Target upside 26% vs 33.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CBRE and CG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 7 points.
- 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 CBRE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CBRE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CBRE +7
- 42 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CBRE +11
- 52 vs 41
- 30 sessions ago
- CBRE +7
- 52 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- CBRE +16
- 54 vs 38
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 15 when CBRE 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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.37%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short 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
CBRE 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 +1.83%, AIQ 0 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CBRE's edge.
- 2CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CBRE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
CG leads on balance| Metric | CBRE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.6% | 5.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -36.1% | 202.7% |
| Gross margin | 17.7% | 70.7% |
| Operating margin | 3.6% | 19.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 6.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.26 | 1.98 |
Performance
CBRE leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CBRE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.4% | -10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.9% | -2.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.2% | -8.5% |
| Year to date | -14.2% | -27.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.3% | -31.7% |
Technicals
CBRE has the stronger structure| Metric | CBRE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.3 | 27.1 |
| ADX (14) | 17.2 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.1% | -9.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.1% | -15.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.6% | 41% |
Risk
CBRE is the more resilient| Metric | CBRE | CG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.83 | 1.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.45 | -0.95 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.59 | -1.43 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -41.6% |
| Current drawdown | -19.6% | -37.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 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, CBRE or CG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CBRE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against CG's 35. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 CBRE or CG the better buy right now?
CBRE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CBRE over CG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CBRE leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; CBRE leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CBRE or CG?
Analyst price targets imply +26% upside for CBRE and +33.8% for CG, so the Street currently favors CG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CBRE. 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, CBRE or CG?
CBRE is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CBRE on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, CBRE 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, CBRE or CG?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CBRE or CG?
CBRE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CBRE 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 CBRE more profitable than CG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.7% vs 70.7%; operating margin 3.6% vs 19.1%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 6.1%. CBRE leads on one measure and CG 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 CBRE's lead over CG getting stronger or weaker?
CBRE lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 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 2026-05-15, when CBRE moved ahead of CG.
What would change the CBRE vs CG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CBRE's edge; CG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CBRE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 CBRE and CG?
CBRE: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 CBRE is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CBRE 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.