CCI vs STAG Stock Comparison

Compare CCI and STAG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.

Market data as of Sep 11, 2026 market close· AIQ score gap 0 points
CCI
Real Estate
vs
STAG
Real Estate
CCI
Crown Castle Inc.
Price
$75.62
Day move
+2.37%
AIQ Score
49/100
Best edge
Value
Sector
Real Estate
STAG
STAG Industrial, Inc.
Price
$37.14
Day move
+0.73%
AIQ Score
49/100
Best edge
Momentum
Sector
Real Estate

What is the main difference between CCI and STAG?

CCI and STAG are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.

AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison

Crown Castle Inc. vs STAG Industrial, Inc.

Data as of Sep 11, 2026· market close· Real Estate· Coverage 66/66 fields· High confidence
AIQ VerdictFragileAIQ Comparison Conviction 2/10

CCI and STAG are effectively level

CCI and STAG are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.

Evidence agreement: 1 of 6Comparison trend: Stable
CCI

Crown Castle Inc.

AIQ Score
49/100
AIQ Edge Score
7/10
STAG

STAG Industrial, Inc.

AIQ Score
49/100
AIQ Edge Score
7/10

The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CCI and STAG as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.

Compare Crown Castle Inc. and STAG Industrial, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.

Currently unavailable

Performance over time

Price-return comparison using available daily close history.

CCI
-61.1%
STAG
-11.6%

Total return comparison

Growth of $10,000

CCI $3,891 · STAG $8,835

Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.

Compare CCI and STAG against another ticker

Open a multi-ticker workspace without changing this focused pair page.

Basic: 2 symbols·Explorer: 3 symbols·Pro and Premium: 5 symbols·Your limit: 2

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.

CCI advantage
0
STAG advantage
  • Momentum35 vs 49
    STAG +14
  • Value48 vs 39
    CCI +9
  • Risk Resilience55 vs 64
    STAG +9
  • Quality58 vs 50
    CCI +8

Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.

What changed since the last close

Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.

CCI-2 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -10

New signals

  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon
STAG-1 AIQ

Largest factor move: Momentum -5

No new signals fired.

CCI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.

Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCI and STAG both carry a full feed there.

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

Even

Neither separates on the overall score.

Growth

CCI

CCI on combined revenue and EPS growth.

Value

CCI

CCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.

Momentum

STAG

STAG on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.

Lower downside

STAG

STAG on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.

Analyst upside

STAG

STAG 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.

MeasureCCISTAGNote
Implied upside to target+18.4%+48.1%STAG has more room
Target dispersion+12.3%+181.8%Lower is tighter analyst agreement
ConsensusBuyHoldContext, not a primary driver
Analysts covering25Higher coverage generally improves confidence

Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

AIQ Agreement Matrix

How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.

Evidence groupFavorsReading
AIQ ScoreEven49 vs 49
FundamentalsCCIon balancerevenue growth -0.2% vs 0.1%; EPS growth 108.8% vs -12.5%; TTM ROE -51.7% vs 6.9%; gross margin 63.2% vs 62%; operating margin 47.7% vs 37.6% — CCI takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them
ValuationCCIValue 48 vs 39
TechnicalsSTAGPrice vs 50-day -0.7% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -12.6% vs -3.3%
Risk ResilienceSTAGRisk Resilience 55 vs 64
Analyst expectationsSTAGTarget upside 18.4% vs 48.1%

AIQ Decision Stability

Fragile

The conclusion is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.

  • The AIQ gap is narrow at 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
  • The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
  • Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (argues the conclusion is provisional)

How the comparison changed

119 daily snapshots · May 4 Sep 10

CCI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.

May 4CCI leads above the line · STAG leads belowSep 10
Today
Level
49 vs 49
7 sessions ago
CCI +1
52 vs 51
30 sessions ago
CCI +2
46 vs 44
90 sessions ago
STAG +12
42 vs 54

The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when CCI moved ahead of STAG.

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.

CCIConflicted

2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted

  • Death Cross Active bearish, trend, long horizon (10.99%)
  • Bollinger Band Squeeze neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • BB Lower Band Breach bullish, volatility, short horizon
STAG

2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral

  • Golden Cross Active bullish, trend, long horizon (0.55%)
  • Bollinger Band Squeeze neutral, volatility, short horizon
  • MACD Bullish Crossover bullish, momentum, short horizon

Price vs model alignment

Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.

CCIDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.37%, AIQ -2 points).

STAGDivergence

Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.73%, AIQ -1 points).

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

CCI leads on balance
MetricCCISTAG
Revenue growth (YoY)-0.2%0.1%
EPS growth (YoY)108.8%-12.5%
Gross margin63.2%62%
Operating margin47.7%37.6%
Return on equity (TTM)-51.7%6.9%
Debt to equity-7.160.96

Performance

STAG leads 5 of 6 windows
MetricCCISTAG
1 week (5 sessions)-2%-1.5%
1 month (20 sessions)-0.1%-0.2%
3 months (63 sessions)-19.2%-2.9%
6 months (126 sessions)-15.6%-3.8%
Year to date-16.9%0.3%
1 year (252 sessions)-21.3%0.7%

Technicals

STAG has the stronger structure
MetricCCISTAG
RSI (14)42.258.8
ADX (14)17.918.9
Price vs 50-day-0.7%-3.2%
Price vs 200-day-12.6%-3.3%
Volatility (1M, annualized)20.4%9.8%

Risk

STAG is the more resilient
MetricCCISTAG
Beta0.090.33
Sharpe ratio-0.810
Sortino ratio-1.10
Max drawdown-25.6%-13.5%
Current drawdown-25.3%-12.3%
Annualized volatility29.9%19.4%
Value at risk (95%)-3.3%-1.8%

Straight answers

Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.

Which has more analyst upside, CCI or STAG?

Analyst price targets imply +18.4% upside for CCI and +48.1% for STAG, so the Street currently favors STAG. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.

Which is better value, CCI or STAG?

CCI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, CCI or STAG?

CCI 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, CCI or STAG?

STAG on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, CCI or STAG?

STAG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STAG on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 CCI more profitable than STAG?

The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 63.2% vs 62%; operating margin 47.7% vs 37.6%; ttm roe -51.7% vs 6.9%. CCI leads on two measures and STAG 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.

What do the current signals say about CCI and STAG?

CCI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. STAG: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 CCI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On STAG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).

Compare CCI and STAG 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.