CHGG vs COMP Stock Comparison
Compare CHGG and COMP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHGG and COMP?
CHGG leads the current stock comparison as Chegg, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chegg, Inc. vs Compass, Inc.
CHGG leads
CHGG leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CHGG, and its lead is widening.
Chegg, Inc.
Compass, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHGG over COMP, 48 versus 27 as of Sep 11, 2026. CHGG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. CHGG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHGG today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. CHGG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 points over 30 sessions. CHGG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Chegg, Inc. and Compass, 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 CHGG and COMP 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.
- Quality50 vs 19CHGG +31
- Value65 vs 42CHGG +23
- Momentum40 vs 25CHGG +15
- Risk Resilience25 vs 19CHGG +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CHGG. CHGG’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CHGG's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHGG and COMP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHGG (Chegg, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
COMP (Compass, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals.
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
CHGGCHGG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COMPCOMP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHGGCHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
CHGGCHGG on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
CHGGCHGG on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CHGGCHGG 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 | CHGG | COMP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +104.2% | +32.5% | CHGG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +43.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 7 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHGG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHGG | 48 vs 27 |
| Fundamentals | COMPon balance | revenue growth -18% vs 59.2%; EPS growth -16% vs 4.3%; TTM ROE -41.9% vs 3.6%; gross margin 58.7% vs 12.7%; operating margin -0.8% vs -0.7% — COMP takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHGG | Value 65 vs 42 |
| Technicals | COMP | Price vs 50-day -16.4% vs -10.7%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs -0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CHGG | Risk Resilience 25 vs 19 |
| Analyst expectations | CHGG | Target upside 104.2% vs 32.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHGG and COMP 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 CHGG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHGG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHGG +21
- 48 vs 27
- 7 sessions ago
- CHGG +20
- 50 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CHGG +4
- 44 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- CHGG +5
- 46 vs 41
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.
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.20%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (10.84%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.91%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
COMP 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.64%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.75%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1COMP closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHGG's edge.
- 2COMP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CHGG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
COMP leads on balance| Metric | CHGG | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18% | 59.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16% | 4.3% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 12.7% |
| Operating margin | -0.8% | -0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -41.9% | 3.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 1.38 |
Performance
COMP leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CHGG | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.8% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.8% | -20.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.6% | 28.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.7% | 17.4% |
| Year to date | -21.5% | -4.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -53.2% | 8.6% |
Technicals
COMP has the stronger structure| Metric | CHGG | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.2 | 26.9 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 16.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.4% | -10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | -0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 100.7% | 52.4% |
Risk
CHGG is the more resilient| Metric | CHGG | COMP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.67 | 2.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | 0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 0.66 |
| Max drawdown | -75.5% | -50.8% |
| Current drawdown | -60.3% | -25.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 109.9% | 66.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.2% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHGG or COMP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHGG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against COMP's 27. The edge comes from quality and 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 CHGG or COMP the better buy right now?
CHGG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 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 CHGG over COMP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHGG leads Quality by 31 points; CHGG leads Value by 23 points; CHGG leads Momentum by 15 points. CHGG leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by COMP simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CHGG or COMP?
Analyst price targets imply +104.2% upside for CHGG and +32.5% for COMP, so the Street currently favors CHGG. 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, CHGG or COMP?
CHGG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, CHGG or COMP?
COMP 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, CHGG or COMP?
CHGG on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, CHGG or COMP?
CHGG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHGG on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 CHGG more profitable than COMP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.7% vs 12.7%; operating margin -0.8% vs -0.7%; ttm roe -41.9% vs 3.6%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 CHGG's lead over COMP getting stronger or weaker?
CHGG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CHGG vs COMP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COMP closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHGG's edge; COMP's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CHGG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CHGG and COMP?
CHGG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. COMP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 CHGG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On COMP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHGG and COMP 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.