CNOB vs CPF Stock Comparison
Compare CNOB and CPF across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CNOB and CPF?
CNOB leads the current stock comparison as ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. vs Central Pacific Financial Corp.
CNOB leads
CNOB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CNOB, and its current signal state is conflicted.
ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc.
Central Pacific Financial Corp.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CNOB over CPF, 59 versus 58 as of Sep 6, 2026. CNOB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while CPF holds the stronger quality profile. CNOB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNOB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CNOB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc. and Central Pacific Financial Corp. 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 CNOB and CPF 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%84 vs 63CNOB +21
- Quality30%60 vs 71CPF +11
- Value30%58 vs 51CNOB +7
- Momentum25%43 vs 47CPF +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CNOB. CNOB’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; CPF keeps a meaningful quality 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.
CNOB's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CNOB and CPF both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CNOB (ConnectOne Bancorp, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CPF (Central Pacific Financial Corp.): the counter-case, on quality, momentum, fundamentals.
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
CNOBCNOB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CPFCPF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CNOBCNOB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
CPFCPF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CNOBCNOB on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
CNOBCNOB 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 | CNOB | CPF | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.2% | -21.4% | CNOB has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CNOB. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CPFon balance | revenue growth -84.3% vs -52%; EPS growth 6.7% vs 1.3%; TTM ROE 10.1% vs 14%; gross margin 45.3% vs 76%; operating margin 18.1% vs 25.6% — CPF takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CNOB | Value 58 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -0.7%; vs 200-day 11% vs 11.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CNOB | Risk Resilience 84 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | CNOB | Target upside 5.2% vs -21.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CNOB and CPF 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CNOB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CNOB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CNOB +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- CNOB +1
- 55 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- CNOB +3
- 63 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- CPF +2
- 63 vs 65
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 10 when CNOB moved ahead of CPF.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.15%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.06%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CNOB 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.78%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.01%, 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.
- 1CPF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNOB's edge.
- 2CPF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CNOB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
CPF leads on balance| Metric | CNOB | CPF |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -84.3% | -52% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.7% | 1.3% |
| Gross margin | 45.3% | 76% |
| Operating margin | 18.1% | 25.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.1% | 14% |
| Debt to equity | 0.02 | 0.17 |
Performance
CNOB leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CNOB | CPF |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.8% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.6% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.4% | 8.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 26% | 21.3% |
| Year to date | 23.2% | 22.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 28.6% | 23.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CNOB | CPF |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44 | 47.9 |
| ADX (14) | 16.3 | 19.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -0.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11% | 11.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.4% | 16.4% |
Risk
CNOB is the more resilient| Metric | CNOB | CPF |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.79 | 0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.85 | 0.76 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.3 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -11.6% | -12.3% |
| Current drawdown | -5.3% | -4.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.5% | 24.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CNOB or CPF?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CNOB is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 59 against CPF's 58. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. CPF is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CNOB or CPF the better buy right now?
CNOB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CNOB over CPF?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CNOB leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; CPF leads Quality by 11 points; CNOB leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CNOB or CPF?
Analyst price targets imply +5.2% upside for CNOB and -21.4% for CPF, so the Street currently favors CNOB. 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, CNOB or CPF?
CNOB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CNOB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, CNOB or CPF?
CPF 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, CNOB or CPF?
CPF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points. 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, CNOB or CPF?
CNOB is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CNOB on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 CNOB more profitable than CPF?
CPF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 45.3% vs 76%; operating margin 18.1% vs 25.6%; ttm roe 10.1% vs 14%.
Is CNOB's lead over CPF getting stronger or weaker?
CNOB lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-10, when CNOB moved ahead of CPF.
What would change the CNOB vs CPF verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CPF closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CNOB's edge; CPF's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CNOB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 CNOB and CPF?
CNOB: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CPF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 CNOB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CPF it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CNOB and CPF 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.