CDW vs CTSH Stock Comparison
CTSH currently leads CDW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 69 vs 65. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between CDW and CTSH?
CTSH leads the current stock comparison as Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CDW Corporation vs Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
CTSH leads
CTSH leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CDW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CTSH, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CDW Corporation
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTSH over CDW, 69 versus 65 as of Oct 21, 2026. CTSH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality. CTSH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CDW. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTSH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CTSH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CDW Corporation and Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation 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 CDW and CTSH 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 Resilience50 vs 61CTSH +11
- Quality50 vs 57CTSH +7
- Momentum85 vs 82Even
- Value72 vs 73Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CTSH. CTSH’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
CTSH's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDW and CTSH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTSH (Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CDW (CDW Corporation): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
CTSHCTSH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CDWCDW on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CTSHCTSH on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
CDWCDW on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CTSH, analyst targets favor CDW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CDW | CTSH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6% | -9.3% | CDW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.3% | +69.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 12 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CDW | CTSH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.22% | 7.10% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.540 | $0.880 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.505 | $1.240 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #94 | #188 |
CDW grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.22% a year against CTSH's 7.10%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTSH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CTSH | 65 vs 69 |
| Fundamentals | CDWon balance | revenue growth 15.7% vs 1.3%; EPS growth 18.7% vs -2.2%; TTM ROE 42.6% vs 14.9%; gross margin 21.4% vs 32%; operating margin 7.1% vs 15.8% — CDW takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 73 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 10.6% vs 14.5%; vs 200-day 17.1% vs 11.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CTSH | Risk Resilience 50 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | CDW | Target upside -6% vs -9.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDW and CTSH 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 CTSH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CTSH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTSH +4
- 65 vs 69
- 7 sessions ago
- CTSH +2
- 66 vs 68
- 30 sessions ago
- CTSH +8
- 49 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- CTSH +12
- 53 vs 65
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when CDW moved ahead of CTSH.
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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CTSH
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CTSH 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 +2.12%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.01%, 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.
- 1CDW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge.
- 2CDW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CTSH's advantage entirely.
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
CDW leads on balance| Metric | CDW | CTSH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.7% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.7% | -2.2% |
| Gross margin | 21.4% | 32% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 15.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 42.6% | 14.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.44 | 0.14 |
Performance
CTSH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CDW | CTSH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | 11.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | 16.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.4% | 47.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | 11.8% |
| Year to date | 13% | -17.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.6% | 1.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CDW | CTSH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.9 | 76.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 26.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.6% | 14.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.1% | 11.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.3% | 41.5% |
Risk
CTSH is the more resilient| Metric | CDW | CTSH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -37.7% | -55.3% |
| Current drawdown | -2.8% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.5% | 42.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDW or CTSH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTSH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 69 against CDW's 65. 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 CDW or CTSH the better buy right now?
CTSH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTSH over CDW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTSH leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; CTSH leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDW or CTSH?
Analyst price targets imply -6% upside for CDW and -9.3% for CTSH, so the Street currently favors CDW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CTSH. 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, CDW or CTSH?
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, CDW or CTSH?
CDW 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, CDW or CTSH?
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, CDW or CTSH?
CTSH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CTSH on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 CDW more profitable than CTSH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.4% vs 32%; operating margin 7.1% vs 15.8%; ttm roe 42.6% vs 14.9%. CDW leads on one measure and CTSH on two measures, 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 CTSH's lead over CDW getting stronger or weaker?
CTSH lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when CDW moved ahead of CTSH.
What would change the CDW vs CTSH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CDW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge; CDW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CTSH's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CDW and CTSH?
CDW: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CTSH: 5 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 CDW is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CTSH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CDW and CTSH 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.