CI vs CVS Stock Comparison
CI currently leads CVS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 58. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CI and CVS?
CI leads the current stock comparison as Cigna Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cigna Corporation vs CVS Health Corp.
CI leads
CI leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CVS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cigna Corporation
CVS Health Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CI over CVS, 62 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. CI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. CI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CVS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. CI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cigna Corporation and CVS Health 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 CVS 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.
- Quality39 vs 28CI +11
- Momentum86 vs 82CI +4
- Value72 vs 70Even
- Risk Resilience50 vs 52Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CI. CI’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
CI's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CI and CVS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CI (Cigna Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CVS (CVS Health Corp.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 23.6%.
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
CICI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CVSCVS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CICI on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CICI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CVSCVS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CI, analyst targets favor CVS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CI | CVS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.5% | +18.4% | CVS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.6% | +30.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 16 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CI | CVS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 172.77% | 5.87% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.040 | $2.000 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.040 | $2.660 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | not ranked | #217 |
CI grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 172.77% a year against CVS's 5.87%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 58 |
| Fundamentals | CVSon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs 5.6%; EPS growth -0.2% vs 0.9%; TTM ROE 15.2% vs 6.4%; gross margin 11.7% vs 14.2%; operating margin 3.5% vs 2% — CVS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 72 vs 70 |
| Technicals | CI | Price vs 50-day 8.8% vs 2%; vs 200-day 8.6% vs 7.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 50 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CVS | Target upside 12.5% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CI and CVS 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CI +4
- 62 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CI +8
- 63 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- CI +7
- 50 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CI +3
- 46 vs 43
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 5 when CI moved ahead of CVS.
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%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CVS
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.76%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, 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).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.37%, 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.
- 1CVS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge.
- 2CVS's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CI'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
CVS leads on balance| Metric | CI | CVS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -0.2% | 0.9% |
| Gross margin | 11.7% | 14.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.5% | 2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.2% | 6.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 0.96 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CI | CVS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.5% | 8.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 12% | 8.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.6% | -12.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | 22.5% |
| Year to date | 9.8% | 19.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.8% | 16.4% |
Technicals
CI has the stronger structure| Metric | CI | CVS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.6 | 79 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.8% | 2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.6% | 7.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.6% | 28.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CI | CVS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | 0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.12 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.14 | 0.62 |
| Max drawdown | -20.8% | -23.1% |
| Current drawdown | -0.6% | -14.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.5% | 31.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CI or CVS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against CVS's 58. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 CVS the better buy right now?
CI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CI over CVS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CI leads Quality by 11 points; CI leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CI or CVS?
Analyst price targets imply +12.5% upside for CI and +18.4% for CVS, so the Street currently favors CVS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CI. 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, CI or CVS?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 CVS?
CVS 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 CVS?
CI on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 CVS?
CI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 CVS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.7% vs 14.2%; operating margin 3.5% vs 2%; ttm roe 15.2% vs 6.4%. CI leads on two measures and CVS 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 CVS getting stronger or weaker?
CI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 4 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-05, when CI moved ahead of CVS.
What would change the CI vs CVS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CVS closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to CI's edge; CVS's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 3 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate CI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CI and CVS?
CI: 4 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. CVS: 5 bullish / 2 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 CVS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CI and CVS 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.