CDW vs EPAM Stock Comparison
EPAM currently leads CDW in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 65. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between CDW and EPAM?
EPAM leads the current stock comparison as EPAM Systems, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CDW Corporation vs EPAM Systems, Inc.
EPAM leads
EPAM leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors CDW on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EPAM, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CDW Corporation
EPAM Systems, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EPAM over CDW, 68 versus 65 as of Oct 21, 2026. EPAM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. EPAM 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 EPAM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. EPAM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CDW Corporation and EPAM Systems, 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 CDW and EPAM 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 57EPAM +7
- Quality50 vs 53Even
- Value72 vs 74Even
- Momentum85 vs 85Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EPAM. EPAM’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
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, 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.
EPAM's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CDW and EPAM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EPAM (EPAM Systems, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
CDW (CDW Corporation): the counter-case, on technicals, 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
EPAMEPAM 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
EPAMEPAM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 EPAM, analyst targets favor CDW. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CDW | EPAM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6% | -7.8% | CDW has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.3% | +93.1% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EPAM. 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 | 65 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | EPAMon balance | revenue growth 15.7% vs 1.1%; EPS growth 18.7% vs 28.8%; TTM ROE 42.6% vs 11.2%; gross margin 21.4% vs 28.3%; operating margin 7.1% vs 10.3% — EPAM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 74 |
| Technicals | CDW | Price vs 50-day 10.6% vs 19.1%; vs 200-day 17.1% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EPAM | Risk Resilience 50 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | CDW | Target upside -6% vs -7.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CDW and EPAM 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 EPAM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EPAM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EPAM +3
- 65 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- CDW +1
- 66 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- EPAM +4
- 49 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- EPAM +6
- 53 vs 59
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when EPAM moved ahead of CDW.
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
Only CDW
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.41%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EPAM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.14%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.04%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EPAM 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.54%, 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.
- 1CDW closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM's edge.
- 2CDW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3EPAM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
EPAM leads on balance| Metric | CDW | EPAM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 15.7% | 1.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.7% | 28.8% |
| Gross margin | 21.4% | 28.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 10.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 42.6% | 11.2% |
| Debt to equity | 2.44 | 0.04 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CDW | EPAM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2% | 13.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.1% | 17.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.4% | 50% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | -1.1% |
| Year to date | 13% | -36.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 2.6% | -9.7% |
Technicals
CDW has the stronger structure| Metric | CDW | EPAM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.9 | 77.1 |
| ADX (14) | 23.8 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 10.6% | 19.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 17.1% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.3% | 46.3% |
Risk
EPAM is the more resilient| Metric | CDW | EPAM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.76 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 0 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | 0 |
| Max drawdown | -37.7% | -65.7% |
| Current drawdown | -2.8% | -41% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.5% | 52.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.3% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CDW or EPAM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EPAM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against CDW's 65. The edge comes from risk resilience. 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 EPAM the better buy right now?
EPAM 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EPAM over CDW?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EPAM leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CDW or EPAM?
Analyst price targets imply -6% upside for CDW and -7.8% for EPAM, so the Street currently favors CDW. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EPAM. 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 EPAM?
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 EPAM?
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 EPAM?
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 EPAM?
EPAM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EPAM on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 EPAM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 21.4% vs 28.3%; operating margin 7.1% vs 10.3%; ttm roe 42.6% vs 11.2%. CDW leads on one measure and EPAM 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 EPAM's lead over CDW getting stronger or weaker?
EPAM lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 2026-10-19, when EPAM moved ahead of CDW.
What would change the CDW vs EPAM 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 7 points behind, the largest single contributor to EPAM's edge; CDW's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; EPAM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 CDW and EPAM?
CDW: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. EPAM: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 EPAM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CDW and EPAM 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.