CI vs CNC Stock Comparison
CI currently leads CNC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 53. The clearest difference is value, while CNC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CI and CNC?
CI leads the current stock comparison as Cigna Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cigna Corporation vs Centene Corp.
CI leads
CI leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CI, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cigna Corporation
Centene Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CI over CNC, 62 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. CI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CNC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CI today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cigna Corporation and Centene Corp. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CI and CNC 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.
- Value72 vs 53CI +19
- Quality39 vs 27CI +12
- Risk Resilience50 vs 60CNC +10
- Momentum86 vs 81CI +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CI. CI’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CNC keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
CI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CI and CNC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CI (Cigna Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CNC (Centene Corp.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
CICI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CICI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CICI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
CICI on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
CNCCNC on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
CICI 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 | CI | CNC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.5% | -3.6% | CI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +59.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 16 | 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 CI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CI | 62 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | CIon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs -11.2%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs -24%; gross margin 11.7% vs 16.1%; operating margin 3.5% vs -2.8% — CI takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CI | Value 72 vs 53 |
| Technicals | CNC | Price vs 50-day 8.8% vs 7.2%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs 30.1% |
| Risk Resilience | CNC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | CI | Target upside 12.5% vs -3.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CI and CNC 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 9 points.
- 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 CI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CI +9
- 62 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- CI +10
- 63 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- CI +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CI +2
- 46 vs 44
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when CNC moved ahead of CI.
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only CI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.32%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CNC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (20.40%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 52-Week High Proximity, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CI 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.73%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.8%, 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.
- 1CNC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge.
- 2CNC's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 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
CI leads on balance| Metric | CI | CNC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | -11.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.2% | -29.4% |
| Gross margin | 11.7% | 16.1% |
| Operating margin | 3.5% | -2.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | -24% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 0.71 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CI | CNC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.5% | 2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12% | 11.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.6% | 7.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | 80.9% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 68.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.8% | 98.7% |
Technicals
CNC has the stronger structure| Metric | CI | CNC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.6 | 77.8 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 17 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.8% | 7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | 30.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.6% | 26.6% |
Risk
CNC is the more resilient| Metric | CI | CNC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | 0.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 1.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | 2.3 |
| Max drawdown | -20.8% | -32.7% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.5% | 47.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CI or CNC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against CNC's 53. The edge comes from value and quality. CNC 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 CI or CNC the better buy right now?
CI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 CI over CNC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CI leads Value by 19 points; CI leads Quality by 12 points; CNC leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CI or CNC?
Analyst price targets imply +12.5% upside for CI and -3.6% for CNC, so the Street currently favors CI. 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, CI or CNC?
CI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, CI or CNC?
CI 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, CI or CNC?
CI on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, CI or CNC?
CNC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CNC on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CI more profitable than CNC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.7% vs 16.1%; operating margin 3.5% vs -2.8%; ttm roe 15.2% vs -24%. CI leads on two measures and CNC 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 CI's lead over CNC getting stronger or weaker?
CI lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-12, when CNC moved ahead of CI.
What would change the CI vs CNC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CNC closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge; CNC's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; 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 CI and CNC?
CI: 4 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. CNC: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 CI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CNC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CI and CNC 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.