CHTR vs EA Stock Comparison
Compare CHTR and EA across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHTR and EA?
EA leads the current stock comparison as Electronic Arts Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Charter Communications, Inc. vs Electronic Arts Inc.
EA leads
EA leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CHTR on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EA, and its lead is widening.
Charter Communications, Inc.
Electronic Arts Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EA over CHTR, 64 versus 58 as of Sep 6, 2026. EA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while CHTR holds the stronger value profile. EA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CHTR. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EA today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. EA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Charter Communications, Inc. and Electronic Arts 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 CHTR and EA 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 Resilience15%24 vs 67EA +43
- Value30%75 vs 53CHTR +22
- Quality30%56 vs 74EA +18
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EA. EA’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; CHTR keeps a meaningful value edge.
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.
EA's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHTR and EA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EA (Electronic Arts Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
CHTR (Charter Communications, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 60.5% against 3.9%.
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
EAEA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CHTRCHTR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CHTRCHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EAEA on Risk Resilience, by 43 points.
Analyst upside
CHTRCHTR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EA, analyst targets favor CHTR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CHTR | EA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.3% | +0.1% | CHTR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +157.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 1 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EA | 58 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | CHTRon balance | EPS growth 16.1% vs -14.6%; TTM ROE 30.4% vs 16.7%; gross margin 56.6% vs 79.9%; operating margin 23.7% vs 17.9% — CHTR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CHTR | Value 75 vs 53 |
| Technicals | EA | Price vs 50-day 6.1% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day -16.6% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EA | Risk Resilience 24 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | CHTR | Target upside 16.3% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHTR and EA 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 EA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5EA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EA +6
- 58 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- EA +10
- 55 vs 65
- 30 sessions ago
- EA +3
- 62 vs 65
- 90 sessions ago
- EA +16
- 54 vs 70
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (27.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.00%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
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 +0.4%, 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.
- 1CHTR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge.
- 2CHTR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
CHTR leads on balance| Metric | CHTR | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -0.5% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.1% | -14.6% |
| Gross margin | 56.6% | 79.9% |
| Operating margin | 23.7% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 30.4% | 16.7% |
| Debt to equity | 5.7 | 0.21 |
Performance
EA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHTR | EA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.4% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -34.6% | 3% |
| Year to date | -27.2% | 2.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41.8% | 37.5% |
Technicals
EA has the stronger structure| Metric | CHTR | EA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.5 | 80.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16 | 44.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.1% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.6% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60.5% | 3.9% |
Risk
EA is the more resilient| Metric | CHTR | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | 0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.87 | 1.42 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.02 | 2.89 |
| Max drawdown | -56.4% | -7.3% |
| Current drawdown | -46.2% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.6% | 18.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -0.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHTR or EA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EA is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 64 against CHTR's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. CHTR 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 CHTR or EA the better buy right now?
EA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 EA over CHTR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EA leads Risk Resilience by 43 points; CHTR leads Value by 22 points; EA leads Quality by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHTR or EA?
Analyst price targets imply +16.3% upside for CHTR and +0.1% for EA, so the Street currently favors CHTR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EA. 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, CHTR or EA?
CHTR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CHTR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, CHTR or EA?
CHTR 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, CHTR or EA?
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, CHTR or EA?
EA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EA on Risk Resilience, by 43 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CHTR more profitable than EA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 56.6% vs 79.9%; operating margin 23.7% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 30.4% vs 16.7%. CHTR leads on two measures and EA 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 EA's lead over CHTR getting stronger or weaker?
EA lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 6 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 CHTR vs EA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CHTR closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge; CHTR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CHTR and EA?
CHTR: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. EA: No active signals. The most decision-relevant rule on CHTR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CHTR and EA 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.