COR vs DOCS Stock Comparison
Compare COR and DOCS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between COR and DOCS?
DOCS leads the current stock comparison as Doximity, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cencora, Inc. vs Doximity, Inc.
DOCS leads
DOCS leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors COR on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support DOCS, and its lead is narrowing.
Cencora, Inc.
Doximity, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DOCS over COR, 57 versus 54 as of Sep 11, 2026. DOCS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while COR holds the stronger value profile. DOCS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors COR. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DOCS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DOCS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cencora, Inc. and Doximity, 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 COR and DOCS 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.
- Quality42 vs 77DOCS +35
- Value62 vs 46COR +16
- Momentum57 vs 47COR +10
- Risk Resilience59 vs 56Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor DOCS. DOCS’s edge is concentrated in quality; COR keeps a meaningful value 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 -8
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
DOCS's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COR and DOCS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DOCS (Doximity, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
COR (Cencora, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
DOCSDOCS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DOCSDOCS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CORCOR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
CORCOR on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
CORCOR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CORCOR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DOCS, analyst targets favor COR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | COR | DOCS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.1% | +6.3% | COR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +27.5% | +84.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 14 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DOCS. 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 | 54 vs 57 |
| Fundamentals | DOCSon balance | revenue growth 8.2% vs 7.7%; EPS growth -53.2% vs 30%; TTM ROE 106.4% vs 17%; gross margin 3.7% vs 88.1%; operating margin 1.3% vs 29.6% — DOCS takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COR | Value 62 vs 46 |
| Technicals | COR | Price vs 50-day 2.3% vs 8.7%; vs 200-day -0.1% vs -13.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | COR | Target upside 13.1% vs 6.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COR and DOCS 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 DOCS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DOCS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DOCS +3
- 54 vs 57
- 7 sessions ago
- DOCS +3
- 59 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- DOCS +9
- 52 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- DOCS +4
- 59 vs 63
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when DOCS moved ahead of COR.
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, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.19%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.35%)
COR 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.19%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.52%, 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.
- 1COR closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOCS's edge.
- 2COR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DOCS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate DOCS'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
DOCS leads on balance| Metric | COR | DOCS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.2% | 7.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -53.2% | 30% |
| Gross margin | 3.7% | 88.1% |
| Operating margin | 1.3% | 29.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 106.4% | 17% |
| Debt to equity | 3.84 | 0.01 |
Performance
COR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | COR | DOCS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.6% | -6.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.1% | 22.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.4% | 0.3% |
| Year to date | -5% | -44.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 7.8% | -64.5% |
Technicals
COR has the stronger structure| Metric | COR | DOCS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 21.5 | 35.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.3% | 8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.1% | -13.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.4% | 54.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | COR | DOCS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | 0.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | -1.38 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.27 | -1.76 |
| Max drawdown | -32.6% | -76% |
| Current drawdown | -14.4% | -67.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 63.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -5.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COR or DOCS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DOCS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 57 against COR's 54. The edge comes from quality. COR 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 COR or DOCS the better buy right now?
DOCS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DOCS over COR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DOCS leads Quality by 35 points; COR leads Value by 16 points; COR leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COR or DOCS?
Analyst price targets imply +13.1% upside for COR and +6.3% for DOCS, so the Street currently favors COR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DOCS. 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, COR or DOCS?
COR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, COR or DOCS?
DOCS 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, COR or DOCS?
COR on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, COR or DOCS?
COR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COR 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 COR more profitable than DOCS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 3.7% vs 88.1%; operating margin 1.3% vs 29.6%; ttm roe 106.4% vs 17%. COR leads on one measure and DOCS 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 DOCS's lead over COR getting stronger or weaker?
DOCS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 3 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 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when DOCS moved ahead of COR.
What would change the COR vs DOCS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COR closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOCS's edge; COR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DOCS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate DOCS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about COR and DOCS?
COR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. DOCS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 COR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DOCS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare COR and DOCS 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.