CCS vs MTH Stock Comparison
Compare CCS and MTH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCS and MTH?
MTH leads the current stock comparison as Meritage Homes Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Communities, Inc. vs Meritage Homes Corporation
MTH leads
MTH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CCS.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MTH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Century Communities, Inc.
Meritage Homes Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MTH over CCS, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 6, 2026. MTH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. MTH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. MTH lead: Reversed — CCS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTH now leads by 2.
Compare Century Communities, Inc. and Meritage Homes Corporation 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 MTH 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.
- Quality30%33 vs 39MTH +6
- Value30%66 vs 65Even
- Momentum25%29 vs 29Even
- Risk Resilience15%61 vs 61Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MTH. MTH’s edge is concentrated in quality.
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.
MTH's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCS and MTH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MTH (Meritage Homes Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CCS (Century Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals.
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
MTHMTH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
MTHMTH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CCSCCS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MTHMTH 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 | MTH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.1% | +28.8% | MTH has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +15% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MTH. 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 48 |
| Fundamentals | MTH | revenue growth 17.4% vs 31%; EPS growth 48.8% vs 67.1%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 6.4%; gross margin 17.1% vs 18.9%; operating margin 4.4% vs 8.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 66 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CCS | Price vs 50-day -5.5% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day 2.8% vs -4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | MTH | Target upside 27.1% vs 28.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCS and MTH 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 2 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 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 MTH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5MTH lead: Reversed — CCS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTH now leads by 2.
- Today
- MTH +2
- 46 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- CCS +1
- 48 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CCS +1
- 53 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- MTH +2
- 57 vs 59
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when MTH 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
- 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
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.82%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MTH 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 -0.21%, 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.
- 1CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTH's edge.
- 2CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MTH'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
MTH leads on balance| Metric | CCS | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.4% | 31% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 48.8% | 67.1% |
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 18.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 8.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.37 |
Performance
CCS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCS | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.7% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.5% | -9.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.2% | -1.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5% | -0.5% |
| Year to date | 8.7% | 2.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.1% | -12.3% |
Technicals
CCS has the stronger structure| Metric | CCS | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 30.2 | 36.4 |
| ADX (14) | 20.8 | 14.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.5% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.8% | -4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.3% | 34.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CCS | MTH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.98 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.03 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.05 | -0.82 |
| Max drawdown | -35.3% | -29.1% |
| Current drawdown | -13.8% | -21% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 37.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCS or MTH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MTH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 48 against CCS's 46. The edge comes from quality. 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 MTH the better buy right now?
MTH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 MTH over CCS?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. MTH leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCS or MTH?
Analyst price targets imply +27.1% upside for CCS and +28.8% for MTH, so the Street currently favors MTH. 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 MTH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 MTH?
MTH 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 MTH?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 MTH?
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. 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 MTH?
MTH leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.1% vs 18.9%; operating margin 4.4% vs 8.4%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 6.4%.
Is MTH's lead over CCS getting stronger or weaker?
MTH lead: Reversed — CCS led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MTH now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when MTH moved ahead of CCS.
What would change the CCS vs MTH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to MTH's edge; CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MTH'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 MTH?
CCS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MTH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CCS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MTH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCS and MTH 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.