CD vs EA Stock Comparison
Compare CD and EA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CD and EA?
EA leads the current stock comparison as Electronic Arts Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chaince Digital Holdings Inc. vs Electronic Arts Inc.
EA leads
EA leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Stable: 4 of 5 evidence groups support EA.
Chaince Digital Holdings Inc.
Electronic Arts Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EA over CD, 64 versus 56 as of Sep 6, 2026. EA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. EA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor EA today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. EA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chaince Digital Holdings Inc. and Electronic Arts 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 CD and EA 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.
- Risk Resilience15%40 vs 67EA +27
- Quality30%58 vs 74EA +16
- Value30%55 vs 53Even
4 of 5 evidence groups favor EA. EA’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and 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.
EA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CD and EA both carry a full feed there.
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
EAEA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CDCD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EAEA on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
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 | CD | EA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +0.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | — | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor EA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EA | 56 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | EA | TTM ROE -13% vs 16.7%; gross margin 63.6% vs 79.9%; operating margin -201.9% vs 17.9% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 55 vs 53 |
| Technicals | EA | Price vs 50-day 19.3% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day -22.7% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EA | Risk Resilience 40 vs 67 |
| 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 CD and EA and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 EA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5EA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EA +8
- 56 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- EA +14
- 51 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- EA +8
- 57 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- EA +21
- 49 vs 70
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 19 when EA moved ahead of CD.
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 / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (53.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
No active signals
CD 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +11.81%, 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.
- 1CD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge.
- 2CD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
EA leads on balance| Metric | CD | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -14.6% |
| Gross margin | 63.6% | 79.9% |
| Operating margin | -201.9% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -13% | 16.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.21 |
Performance
EA leads 3 of 5 windows| Metric | CD | EA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 24.8% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 53.6% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -23.6% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -27.6% | 3% |
| Year to date | -18.1% | 2.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | — | 37.5% |
Technicals
EA has the stronger structure| Metric | CD | EA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 80.9 |
| ADX (14) | 18.2 | 44.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 19.3% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -22.7% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 178.1% | 3.9% |
Risk
EA is the more resilient| Metric | CD | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.57 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.05 | 1.42 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | 2.89 |
| Max drawdown | -75.7% | -7.3% |
| Current drawdown | -62.7% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 147.5% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -12.8% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CD or EA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 64 against CD's 56. The edge comes from risk resilience and 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 CD or EA the better buy right now?
EA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 5 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EA over CD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EA leads Risk Resilience by 27 points; EA leads Quality by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CD or EA?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for CD and +0.1% for EA. 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, CD or EA?
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, CD or EA?
CD 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, CD or EA?
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, CD or EA?
EA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EA on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 CD more profitable than EA?
EA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 63.6% vs 79.9%; operating margin -201.9% vs 17.9%; ttm roe -13% vs 16.7%.
Is EA's lead over CD getting stronger or weaker?
EA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-19, when EA moved ahead of CD.
What would change the CD vs EA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CD closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 27 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge; CD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CD and EA?
CD: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. EA: No active signals. 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 CD is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CD and EA 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.