CCS vs PHM Stock Comparison
PHM currently leads CCS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 53 vs 45. The clearest difference is quality, while CCS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CCS and PHM?
PHM leads the current stock comparison as PulteGroup, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Century Communities, Inc. vs PulteGroup, Inc.
PHM leads
PHM leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors CCS on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PHM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Century Communities, Inc.
PulteGroup, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PHM over CCS, 53 versus 45 as of Oct 21, 2026. PHM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CCS holds the stronger value profile. PHM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CCS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PHM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Century Communities, Inc. and PulteGroup, 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 PHM 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 53PHM +20
- Momentum28 vs 40PHM +12
- Risk Resilience58 vs 70PHM +12
- Value66 vs 56CCS +10
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PHM. PHM’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 +11
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
PHM's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCS and PHM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PHM (PulteGroup, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CCS (Century Communities, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
PHMPHM 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 10 points.
Momentum
PHMPHM on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
PHMPHM on Risk Resilience, by 12 points.
Analyst upside
CCSCCS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PHM, analyst targets favor CCS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCS | PHM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.1% | +23.2% | CCS has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +40.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 11 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PHM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PHM | 45 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | PHMon balance | revenue growth 17.4% vs 16.9%; EPS growth 48.8% vs 35.9%; TTM ROE 5.2% vs 14.7%; gross margin 17.1% vs 24.5%; operating margin 4.4% vs 14.6% — PHM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCS | Value 66 vs 56 |
| Technicals | PHM | Price vs 50-day -13.5% vs -6.4%; vs 200-day -11.1% vs -7.8% |
| Risk Resilience | PHM | Risk Resilience 58 vs 70 |
| Analyst expectations | CCS | Target upside 51.1% vs 23.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCS and PHM 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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 PHM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PHM +8
- 45 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- PHM +6
- 44 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- PHM +6
- 48 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- PHM +3
- 53 vs 56
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only PHM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.97%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PHM 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.
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 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.43%, AIQ +3 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 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHM's edge.
- 2CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PHM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
PHM leads on balance| Metric | CCS | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 17.4% | 16.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 48.8% | 35.9% |
| Gross margin | 17.1% | 24.5% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 14.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 5.2% | 14.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.66 | 0.18 |
Performance
PHM leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCS | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.1% | 2.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.2% | -6.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | -9.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.1% | -11% |
| Year to date | -6.5% | -2.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.1% | -7.5% |
Technicals
PHM has the stronger structure| Metric | CCS | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 47 |
| ADX (14) | 31 | 18.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.5% | -6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.1% | -7.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 34.2% | 29.5% |
Risk
PHM is the more resilient| Metric | CCS | PHM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | -0.21 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.15 | -0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -35.3% | -23.3% |
| Current drawdown | -25.9% | -19.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 32.8% |
| 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 PHM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PHM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 53 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 PHM the better buy right now?
PHM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 PHM over CCS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PHM leads Quality by 20 points; PHM leads Momentum by 12 points; PHM leads Risk Resilience by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCS or PHM?
Analyst price targets imply +51.1% upside for CCS and +23.2% for PHM, so the Street currently favors CCS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PHM. 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 PHM?
CCS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 PHM?
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 PHM?
PHM on the Momentum factor, by 12 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 PHM?
PHM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PHM on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 CCS more profitable than PHM?
PHM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 17.1% vs 24.5%; operating margin 4.4% vs 14.6%; ttm roe 5.2% vs 14.7%.
Is PHM's lead over CCS getting stronger or weaker?
PHM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CCS vs PHM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCS closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PHM's edge; CCS's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PHM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 PHM?
CCS: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PHM: 1 bullish / 2 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 PHM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCS and PHM 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.