CHGG vs COUR Stock Comparison
Compare CHGG and COUR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHGG and COUR?
CHGG leads the current stock comparison as Chegg, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chegg, Inc. vs Coursera, Inc.
CHGG leads
CHGG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from COUR.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CHGG, and the lead recently changed hands.
Chegg, Inc.
Coursera, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHGG over COUR, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. CHGG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while COUR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CHGG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHGG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CHGG lead: Reversed — COUR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHGG now leads by 2.
Compare Chegg, Inc. and Coursera, 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 COUR 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 Resilience25 vs 48COUR +23
- Value65 vs 50CHGG +15
- Momentum40 vs 30CHGG +10
- Quality50 vs 55COUR +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CHGG. CHGG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; COUR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
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 -1
No new signals fired.
CHGG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHGG and COUR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHGG (Chegg, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
COUR (Coursera, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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
CHGGCHGG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHGGCHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
CHGGCHGG on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
COURCOUR on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 | COUR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +104.2% | +45.6% | CHGG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +46.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | Even | 48 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -18% vs 52.6%; EPS growth -16% vs -216.7%; TTM ROE -41.9% vs -17.7%; gross margin 58.7% vs 55.9% |
| Valuation | CHGG | Value 65 vs 50 |
| Technicals | COUR | Price vs 50-day -16.4% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs -15.3% |
| Risk Resilience | COUR | Risk Resilience 25 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | CHGG | Target upside 104.2% vs 45.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHGG and COUR 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 CHGG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHGG lead: Reversed — COUR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHGG now leads by 2.
- Today
- CHGG +2
- 48 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- COUR +4
- 50 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- COUR +12
- 44 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- COUR +10
- 46 vs 56
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when COUR moved ahead of CHGG.
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%)
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.99%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.19%, 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.
- 1COUR closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHGG's edge.
- 2COUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
Split| Metric | CHGG | COUR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18% | 52.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16% | -216.7% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 55.9% |
| Operating margin | -0.8% | -17.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -41.9% | -17.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0.01 |
Performance
CHGG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CHGG | COUR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.8% | -14.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.8% | -6.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.6% | -2.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.7% | -14% |
| Year to date | -21.5% | -28.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -53.2% | -54.9% |
Technicals
COUR has the stronger structure| Metric | CHGG | COUR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.2 | 36 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 17.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.4% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | -15.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 100.7% | 49.1% |
Risk
COUR is the more resilient| Metric | CHGG | COUR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.67 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | -1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | -1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -75.5% | -57.8% |
| Current drawdown | -60.3% | -56.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 109.9% | 58% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.2% | -5.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHGG or COUR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHGG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against COUR's 46. The edge comes from value and momentum. COUR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience profile, which matters more if that is the objective you are optimizing for. 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 COUR the better buy right now?
CHGG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHGG over COUR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COUR leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; CHGG leads Value by 15 points; CHGG leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHGG or COUR?
Analyst price targets imply +104.2% upside for CHGG and +45.6% for COUR, 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 COUR?
CHGG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 COUR?
CHGG 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 COUR?
CHGG on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 COUR?
COUR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COUR on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 COUR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.7% vs 55.9%; operating margin -0.8% vs -17.8%; ttm roe -41.9% vs -17.7%. 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 COUR getting stronger or weaker?
CHGG lead: Reversed — COUR led by 12 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHGG now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when COUR moved ahead of CHGG.
What would change the CHGG vs COUR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COUR closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHGG's edge; COUR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 COUR?
CHGG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. COUR: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on CHGG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On COUR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CHGG and COUR 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.