CCS vs FIG Stock Comparison
FIG currently leads CCS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while CCS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CCS and FIG?
FIG leads the current stock comparison as Figma, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Communities, Inc. vs Figma, Inc.
FIG leads
FIG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from CCS. Wall Street currently favors CCS on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support FIG, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Century Communities, Inc.
Figma, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FIG over CCS, 47 versus 45 as of Oct 22, 2026. FIG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CCS holds the stronger value profile. FIG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CCS. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FIG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. FIG lead: Reversed — CCS led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIG now leads by 2.
Compare Century Communities, Inc. and Figma, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
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.
- Value66 vs 26CCS +40
- Quality33 vs 59FIG +26
- Momentum28 vs 51FIG +23
- Risk Resilience58 vs 57Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor FIG. FIG’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CCS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
FIG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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
FIG (Figma, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CCS (Century Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
FIGFIG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
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 23 points.
Lower downside
CCSCCS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CCSCCS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FIG, analyst targets favor CCS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCS | FIG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.1% | +27.6% | CCS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +54.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FIG. 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 | 45 vs 47 |
| 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 | FIG | Price vs 50-day -13.5% vs -3.3%; vs 200-day -11.1% vs -3.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | CCS | Target upside 51.1% vs 27.6% |
✓ 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 FIG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FIG lead: Reversed — CCS led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIG now leads by 2.
- Today
- FIG +2
- 45 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- FIG +4
- 44 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- CCS +6
- 48 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- CCS +4
- 53 vs 49
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when FIG moved ahead of CCS.
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
Only CCS
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only FIG
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
CCS is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
Price vs model alignment
Whether the latest session's price move confirms what the model did over the same session, or contradicts it.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.15%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.19%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIG's edge.
- 2CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FIG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
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
FIG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 4.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.2% | 4.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | 5.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.1% | 21.3% |
| Year to date | -6.5% | -39.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.1% | -60.7% |
Technicals
FIG has the stronger structure| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 60.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31 | 14 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.5% | -3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.1% | -3.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 50.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CCS | FIG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -1.65 |
| Max drawdown | -35.3% | -70.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.9% | -60% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 74.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -6.9% |
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, FIG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 47 against CCS's 45. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CCS 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 CCS or FIG the better buy right now?
FIG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FIG over CCS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCS leads Value by 40 points; FIG leads Quality by 26 points; FIG leads Momentum by 23 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 +51.1% upside for CCS and +27.6% for FIG, so the Street currently favors CCS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FIG. 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, 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 23 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, CCS or FIG?
CCS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in 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 FIG's lead over CCS getting stronger or weaker?
FIG lead: Reversed — CCS led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FIG now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when FIG moved ahead of CCS.
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: CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to FIG's edge; CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FIG's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CCS and FIG?
CCS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FIG: 2 bullish / 0 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 Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCS and FIG 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.