CME vs EVR Stock Comparison
Compare CME and EVR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CME and EVR?
EVR leads the current stock comparison as Evercore Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CME Group Inc. vs Evercore Inc.
EVR leads
EVR leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EVR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CME Group Inc.
Evercore Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EVR over CME, 61 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. EVR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CME holds the stronger momentum profile. EVR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EVR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EVR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CME Group Inc. and Evercore 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 CME and EVR 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.
- Value26 vs 48EVR +22
- Quality74 vs 91EVR +17
- Momentum54 vs 42CME +12
- Risk Resilience56 vs 60EVR +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EVR. EVR’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CME keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
EVR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CME and EVR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EVR (Evercore Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CME (CME Group Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, 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
EVREVR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CMECME on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EVREVR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
CMECME on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
EVREVR on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
EVREVR 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 | CME | EVR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.9% | +62.6% | EVR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.2% | +131.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 5 | 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 EVR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EVR | 52 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | CMEon balance | revenue growth -9.2% vs -28.7%; EPS growth -12% vs -68%; TTM ROE 15.5% vs 39.8%; gross margin 81.9% vs 98.5%; operating margin 65.1% vs 22.1% — CME takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EVR | Value 26 vs 48 |
| Technicals | CME | Price vs 50-day 5.3% vs -10.8%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs -13.3% |
| Risk Resilience | EVR | Risk Resilience 56 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | EVR | Target upside 14.9% vs 62.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CME and EVR 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 moderate at 9 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 EVR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EVR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EVR +9
- 52 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- EVR +4
- 57 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- EVR +4
- 53 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- EVR +16
- 45 vs 61
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when EVR moved ahead of CME.
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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.50%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.60%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
EVR 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 +0.54%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.85%, 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.
- 1CME closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EVR's edge.
- 2CME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EVR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
CME leads on balance| Metric | CME | EVR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.2% | -28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -12% | -68% |
| Gross margin | 81.9% | 98.5% |
| Operating margin | 65.1% | 22.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 15.5% | 39.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.13 | 0.59 |
Performance
CME leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CME | EVR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.3% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.5% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.9% | -16.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.6% | -1.6% |
| Year to date | 0.4% | -16.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.4% | -12.3% |
Technicals
CME has the stronger structure| Metric | CME | EVR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.9 | 45.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.7 | 32 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.3% | -10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | -13.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.7% | 28.5% |
Risk
EVR is the more resilient| Metric | CME | EVR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.32 | 1.74 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.15 | -0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.21 | -0.36 |
| Max drawdown | -33% | -30.3% |
| Current drawdown | -16.1% | -26% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.9% | 37.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CME or EVR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EVR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 61 against CME's 52. The edge comes from value and quality. CME is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CME or EVR the better buy right now?
EVR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EVR over CME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EVR leads Value by 22 points; EVR leads Quality by 17 points; CME leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CME or EVR?
Analyst price targets imply +14.9% upside for CME and +62.6% for EVR, so the Street currently favors EVR. 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, CME or EVR?
EVR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EVR 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, CME or EVR?
CME 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, CME or EVR?
CME on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, CME or EVR?
EVR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EVR on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CME more profitable than EVR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 81.9% vs 98.5%; operating margin 65.1% vs 22.1%; ttm roe 15.5% vs 39.8%. CME leads on one measure and EVR 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 EVR's lead over CME getting stronger or weaker?
EVR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 9 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when EVR moved ahead of CME.
What would change the CME vs EVR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CME closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EVR's edge; CME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EVR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 CME and EVR?
CME: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. EVR: 1 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 CME is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EVR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CME and EVR 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.