CHCO vs CTBI Stock Comparison
Compare CHCO and CTBI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHCO and CTBI?
CTBI leads the current stock comparison as Community Trust Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
City Holding Company vs Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.
CTBI leads
CTBI leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CTBI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
City Holding Company
Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTBI over CHCO, 58 versus 55 as of Sep 6, 2026. CTBI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. CTBI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTBI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CTBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare City Holding Company and Community Trust Bancorp, 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 CHCO and CTBI 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.
- Value30%37 vs 49CTBI +12
- Momentum25%60 vs 57Even
- Quality30%67 vs 66Even
- Risk Resilience15%59 vs 60Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CTBI. CTBI’s edge is concentrated in value.
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.
CTBI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHCO and CTBI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTBI (Community Trust Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
CHCO (City Holding Company): the counter-case, on fundamentals.
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
CTBICTBI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CTBICTBI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CTBICTBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CHCOCHCO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CTBICTBI 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 | CHCO | CTBI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -10.7% | +2.5% | CTBI has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +7.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CTBI. 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 | 55 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CHCOon balance | revenue growth -18.5% vs 5.5%; EPS growth 6.8% vs 8.6%; TTM ROE 16.4% vs 12.5%; gross margin 78.8% vs 68.6%; operating margin 38% vs 33.1% — CHCO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CTBI | Value 37 vs 49 |
| Technicals | CTBI | Price vs 50-day 3.3% vs 2.4%; vs 200-day 13.9% vs 18.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | CTBI | Target upside -10.7% vs 2.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHCO and CTBI 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 CTBI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CTBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CTBI +3
- 55 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CTBI +4
- 52 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- CTBI +3
- 59 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- CTBI +2
- 59 vs 61
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.26%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.58%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
CTBI 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 +0.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.35%, 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.
- 1CHCO closes the Value gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTBI's edge.
- 2CHCO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CTBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
CHCO leads on balance| Metric | CHCO | CTBI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18.5% | 5.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 8.6% |
| Gross margin | 78.8% | 68.6% |
| Operating margin | 38% | 33.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.4% | 12.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.65 | 0.42 |
Performance
CTBI leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CHCO | CTBI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.4% | 0% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.8% | 15.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 20.6% | 29.9% |
| Year to date | 22.1% | 37.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 13.3% | 33.6% |
Technicals
CTBI has the stronger structure| Metric | CHCO | CTBI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.5 | 44.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 18.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.3% | 2.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 13.9% | 18.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 12.4% | 13.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CHCO | CTBI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.17 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.49 | 1.07 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 1.64 |
| Max drawdown | -10.4% | -13.3% |
| Current drawdown | -1.6% | -2.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 18.2% | 25.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.7% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHCO or CTBI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTBI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against CHCO's 55. The edge comes from value. 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 CHCO or CTBI the better buy right now?
CTBI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 CTBI over CHCO?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CTBI leads Value by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHCO or CTBI?
Analyst price targets imply -10.7% upside for CHCO and +2.5% for CTBI, so the Street currently favors CTBI. 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, CHCO or CTBI?
CTBI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CTBI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 12 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, CHCO or CTBI?
CTBI 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, CHCO or CTBI?
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, CHCO or CTBI?
CHCO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHCO 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 CHCO more profitable than CTBI?
CHCO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 78.8% vs 68.6%; operating margin 38% vs 33.1%; ttm roe 16.4% vs 12.5%.
Is CTBI's lead over CHCO getting stronger or weaker?
CTBI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CHCO vs CTBI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHCO closes the Value gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTBI's edge; CHCO's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CTBI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 CHCO and CTBI?
CHCO: 4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CTBI: 4 bullish / 1 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 CHCO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CTBI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHCO and CTBI 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.