CCS vs FIG Stock Comparison
Compare CCS and FIG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCS and FIG?
CCS leads the current stock comparison as Century Communities, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Communities, Inc. vs Figma, Inc.
CCS leads
CCS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CCS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Century Communities, Inc.
Figma, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCS over FIG, 46 versus 43 as of Sep 6, 2026. CCS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while FIG holds the stronger quality profile. CCS also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CCS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Century Communities, Inc. and Figma, 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 CCS and FIG 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%66 vs 26CCS +40
- Quality30%33 vs 59FIG +26
- Momentum25%29 vs 37FIG +8
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 57CCS +4
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CCS. CCS’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; FIG keeps a meaningful quality 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.
CCS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCS and FIG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCS (Century Communities, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
FIG (Figma, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum — but at materially higher volatility, 86% against 29.3%.
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
CCSCCS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CCSCCS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCSCCS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
FIGFIG on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
CCSCCS on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CCSCCS 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 | CCS | FIG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.1% | +25.6% | CCS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +52.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCS. 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 | 46 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | CCSon balance | revenue growth 17.4% vs 11%; EPS growth 48.8% vs 22.2%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs -108.2%; gross margin 17.1% vs 79.1%; operating margin 4.4% vs -123.8% — CCS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCS | Value 66 vs 26 |
| Technicals | CCS | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -0.2%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -7% |
| Risk Resilience | CCS | Risk Resilience 61 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | CCS | Target upside 27.1% vs 25.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCS and FIG 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)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 CCS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CCS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCS +3
- 46 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- FIG +4
- 48 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CCS +3
- 53 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- CCS +7
- 57 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when CCS moved ahead of FIG.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.80%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.29%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
CCS 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 +0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -4.36%, 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.
- 1FIG closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCS's edge.
- 2FIG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CCS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CCS leads on balance| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.4% | 11% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 48.8% | 22.2% |
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 79.1% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | -123.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | -108.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.05 |
Performance
CCS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.7% | -16.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.5% | 3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.2% | 10.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5% | -17.1% |
| Year to date | 8.7% | -35.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | -64.6% |
Technicals
CCS has the stronger structure| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.2 | 46.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 13.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -0.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 86% |
Risk
CCS is the more resilient| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 1.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.03 | -0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.05 | -1.29 |
| Max drawdown | -35.3% | -76.3% |
| Current drawdown | -13.8% | -66.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 79.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -7.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCS or FIG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 46 against FIG's 43. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. FIG is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CCS or FIG the better buy right now?
CCS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 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 CCS over FIG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CCS leads Value by 40 points; FIG leads Quality by 26 points; FIG leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCS or FIG?
Analyst price targets imply +27.1% upside for CCS and +25.6% for FIG, so the Street currently favors CCS. 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, CCS or FIG?
CCS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, CCS or FIG?
CCS 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, CCS or FIG?
FIG on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, CCS or FIG?
CCS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCS on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CCS more profitable than FIG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.1% vs 79.1%; operating margin 4.4% vs -123.8%; ttm roe 5.2% vs -108.2%. CCS leads on two measures and FIG 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 CCS's lead over FIG getting stronger or weaker?
CCS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when CCS moved ahead of FIG.
What would change the CCS vs FIG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FIG closes the Value gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCS's edge; FIG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CCS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 CCS and FIG?
CCS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FIG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 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 CCS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FIG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCS and FIG 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.