CCS vs GRBK Stock Comparison
GRBK currently leads CCS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while CCS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CCS and GRBK?
GRBK leads the current stock comparison as Green Brick Partners, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Communities, Inc. vs Green Brick Partners, Inc.
GRBK leads
GRBK leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality.
Competitive: 3 of 5 evidence groups support GRBK.
Century Communities, Inc.
Green Brick Partners, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GRBK over CCS, 50 versus 45 as of Oct 22, 2026. GRBK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CCS holds the stronger value profile. GRBK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GRBK today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. GRBK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Century Communities, Inc. and Green Brick Partners, 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 GRBK 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.
- Quality33 vs 57GRBK +24
- Value66 vs 57CCS +9
- Momentum28 vs 30Even
- Risk Resilience58 vs 58Even
3 of 5 evidence groups favor GRBK. GRBK’s edge is concentrated in quality; 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
GRBK's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCS and GRBK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GRBK (Green Brick Partners, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CCS (Century Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 34.2% against 29.1%.
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
GRBKGRBK 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 9 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GRBKGRBK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CCS | GRBK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.1% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | 0% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 5 covered evidence groups favor GRBK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GRBK | 45 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | GRBKon balance | revenue growth 17.4% vs 6.1%; EPS growth 48.8% vs 22.1%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 15.4%; gross margin 17.1% vs 31.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 19.5% — GRBK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCS | Value 66 vs 57 |
| Technicals | GRBK | Price vs 50-day -13.5% vs -10.7%; vs 200-day -11.1% vs -11.1% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 58 vs 58 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCS and GRBK 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 narrow at 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 GRBK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20GRBK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GRBK +5
- 45 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- GRBK +5
- 44 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- GRBK +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- GRBK +1
- 53 vs 54
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when GRBK 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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.52%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.74%)
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only GRBK
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.11%, 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 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRBK's edge.
- 2CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3GRBK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
GRBK leads on balance| Metric | CCS | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.4% | 6.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 48.8% | 22.1% |
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 31.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 19.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 15.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.16 |
Performance
GRBK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCS | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.2% | -9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | -13.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.1% | -12.6% |
| Year to date | -6.5% | -1.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.1% | -7.5% |
Technicals
GRBK has the stronger structure| Metric | CCS | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 31 | 19.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.5% | -10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.1% | -11.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 29.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CCS | GRBK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 0.9 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -0.39 |
| Max drawdown | -35.3% | -25.4% |
| Current drawdown | -25.9% | -23.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 32.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCS or GRBK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GRBK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 50 against CCS's 45. The edge comes from quality. 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 GRBK the better buy right now?
GRBK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 5 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 GRBK over CCS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GRBK leads Quality by 24 points; CCS leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCS or GRBK?
Analyst price targets imply +51.1% upside for CCS and not covered for GRBK. 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 GRBK?
CCS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCS 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, CCS or GRBK?
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 GRBK?
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, CCS or GRBK?
GRBK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GRBK 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 GRBK?
GRBK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.1% vs 31.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 19.5%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 15.4%.
Is GRBK's lead over CCS getting stronger or weaker?
GRBK lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-12, when GRBK moved ahead of CCS.
What would change the CCS vs GRBK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to GRBK's edge; CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; GRBK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 GRBK?
CCS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GRBK: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 GRBK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCS and GRBK 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.