CMCSA vs EA Stock Comparison
EA currently leads CMCSA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality, while CMCSA has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CMCSA and EA?
EA leads the current stock comparison as Electronic Arts Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Comcast Corporation vs Electronic Arts Inc.
EA leads
EA leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CMCSA on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EA, and its lead is narrowing.
Comcast Corporation
Electronic Arts Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EA over CMCSA, 64 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. EA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CMCSA holds the stronger value profile. EA also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMCSA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. EA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Comcast Corporation and Electronic Arts Inc. 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 CMCSA 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.
- Value72 vs 53CMCSA +19
- Quality57 vs 74EA +17
- Risk Resilience52 vs 67EA +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EA. EA’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CMCSA keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
EA's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMCSA and EA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EA (Electronic Arts Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CMCSA (Comcast Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.5% 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 most heavily.
Growth
CMCSACMCSA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CMCSACMCSA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EAEA on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
CMCSACMCSA 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 CMCSA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMCSA | EA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +28.7% | +0.1% | CMCSA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +63.3% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CMCSA | EA |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.63% | 34.92% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.900 | $0.170 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.300 | $0.760 |
| Years increased | 5 | 3 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #155 | not ranked |
EA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 34.92% a year against CMCSA's 7.63%. 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
4 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 | 59 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | EAon balance | revenue growth -4.8% vs -5.7%; EPS growth 65% vs -14.6%; TTM ROE 12% vs 16.7%; gross margin 69.4% vs 79.9%; operating margin 14.7% vs 17.9% — EA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMCSA | Value 72 vs 53 |
| Technicals | EA | Price vs 50-day -8% vs 2.2%; vs 200-day -15% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EA | Risk Resilience 52 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | CMCSA | Target upside 28.7% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMCSA and EA 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20EA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EA +5
- 59 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- EA +8
- 56 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- EA +12
- 52 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- EA +3
- 62 vs 65
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CMCSA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.68%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
CMCSA is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.25%, 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.
- 1CMCSA closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge.
- 2CMCSA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate EA'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
EA leads on balance| Metric | CMCSA | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -4.8% | -5.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 65% | -14.6% |
| Gross margin | 69.4% | 79.9% |
| Operating margin | 14.7% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12% | 16.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.01 | 0.21 |
Performance
EA leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CMCSA | EA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.1% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.3% | 2.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.9% | 3.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23% | 3% |
| Year to date | -25.2% | 2.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.6% | 37.5% |
Technicals
EA has the stronger structure| Metric | CMCSA | EA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59 | 80.9 |
| ADX (14) | 40.8 | 44.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8% | 2.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.5% | 3.9% |
Risk
EA is the more resilient| Metric | CMCSA | EA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.07 | 0.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.81 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.98 | 2.78 |
| Max drawdown | -36.4% | -3.9% |
| Current drawdown | -31.2% | -0.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.8% | 17.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -0.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMCSA or EA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against CMCSA's 59. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CMCSA 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 CMCSA or EA the better buy right now?
EA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EA over CMCSA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMCSA leads Value by 19 points; EA leads Quality by 17 points; EA leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMCSA or EA?
Analyst price targets imply +28.7% upside for CMCSA and +0.1% for EA, so the Street currently favors CMCSA. 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, CMCSA or EA?
CMCSA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMCSA 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, CMCSA or EA?
CMCSA 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, CMCSA or EA?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CMCSA or EA?
EA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EA on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 CMCSA more profitable than EA?
EA leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 69.4% vs 79.9%; operating margin 14.7% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 12% vs 16.7%.
Is EA's lead over CMCSA getting stronger or weaker?
EA lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CMCSA vs EA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMCSA closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to EA's edge; CMCSA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EA starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate EA's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CMCSA and EA?
CMCSA: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EA: No active signals. 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 CMCSA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CMCSA and EA 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.