CHGG vs DSP Stock Comparison
Compare CHGG and DSP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHGG and DSP?
DSP leads the current stock comparison as Viant Technology Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chegg, Inc. vs Viant Technology Inc.
DSP leads
DSP leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CHGG on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DSP, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chegg, Inc.
Viant Technology Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DSP over CHGG, 61 versus 48 as of Sep 11, 2026. DSP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while CHGG holds the stronger value profile. DSP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CHGG. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DSP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. DSP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chegg, Inc. and Viant Technology 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 DSP 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 59DSP +34
- Momentum40 vs 65DSP +25
- Quality50 vs 59DSP +9
- Value65 vs 59CHGG +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DSP. DSP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; CHGG keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience +2
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
DSP's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHGG and DSP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DSP (Viant Technology Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
CHGG (Chegg, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 100.7% against 41%.
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
DSPDSP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DSPDSP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHGGCHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
DSPDSP on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
DSPDSP on Risk Resilience, by 34 points.
Analyst upside
CHGGCHGG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DSP, analyst targets favor CHGG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CHGG | DSP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +104.2% | +41.5% | CHGG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +22.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 3 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DSP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DSP | 48 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | DSPon balance | revenue growth -18% vs 17.8%; EPS growth -16% vs 95.3%; TTM ROE -41.9% vs 11.4%; gross margin 58.7% vs 44.5%; operating margin -0.8% vs 2.3% — DSP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHGG | Value 65 vs 59 |
| Technicals | DSP | Price vs 50-day -16.4% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day -18.8% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | DSP | Risk Resilience 25 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CHGG | Target upside 104.2% vs 41.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHGG and DSP and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DSP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DSP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DSP +13
- 48 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- DSP +12
- 50 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- DSP +18
- 44 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- DSP +17
- 46 vs 63
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 31 when DSP 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%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.50%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
DSP 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.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.26%, 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.
- 1CHGG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to DSP's edge.
- 2CHGG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DSP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate DSP'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
DSP leads on balance| Metric | CHGG | DSP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -18% | 17.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16% | 95.3% |
| Gross margin | 58.7% | 44.5% |
| Operating margin | -0.8% | 2.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -41.9% | 11.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | 0.2 |
Performance
DSP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHGG | DSP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.8% | -2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.8% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.6% | 10% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.7% | 14.9% |
| Year to date | -21.5% | 5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -53.2% | 23.6% |
Technicals
DSP has the stronger structure| Metric | CHGG | DSP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 48.2 | 54.4 |
| ADX (14) | 18.8 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.4% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -18.8% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 100.7% | 41% |
Risk
DSP is the more resilient| Metric | CHGG | DSP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 2.67 | 1.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.19 | 0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.35 | 1.02 |
| Max drawdown | -75.5% | -31% |
| Current drawdown | -60.3% | -9.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 109.9% | 62.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -10.2% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHGG or DSP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DSP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 61 against CHGG's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. CHGG is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 DSP the better buy right now?
DSP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DSP over CHGG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DSP leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; DSP leads Momentum by 25 points; DSP leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHGG or DSP?
Analyst price targets imply +104.2% upside for CHGG and +41.5% for DSP, so the Street currently favors CHGG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DSP. 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, CHGG or DSP?
CHGG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHGG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 DSP?
DSP 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 DSP?
DSP on the Momentum factor, by 25 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 DSP?
DSP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DSP on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 DSP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.7% vs 44.5%; operating margin -0.8% vs 2.3%; ttm roe -41.9% vs 11.4%. CHGG leads on one measure and DSP 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 DSP's lead over CHGG getting stronger or weaker?
DSP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-31, when DSP moved ahead of CHGG.
What would change the CHGG vs DSP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHGG closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to DSP's edge; CHGG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DSP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate DSP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CHGG and DSP?
CHGG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. DSP: 3 bullish / 1 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 DSP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHGG and DSP 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.