COUR vs GENI Stock Comparison
COUR currently leads GENI in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 36. The clearest difference is quality, while GENI has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between COUR and GENI?
COUR leads the current stock comparison as Coursera, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coursera, Inc. vs Genius Sports Limited
COUR leads
COUR leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support COUR, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coursera, Inc.
Genius Sports Limited
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COUR over GENI, 46 versus 36 as of Oct 31, 2026. COUR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GENI holds the stronger momentum profile. COUR also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COUR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. COUR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coursera, Inc. and Genius Sports Limited across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare COUR and GENI 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.
- Quality55 vs 24COUR +31
- Risk Resilience53 vs 22COUR +31
- Momentum26 vs 44GENI +18
- Value49 vs 48Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor COUR. COUR’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GENI keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
New signals
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
COUR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — COUR and GENI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COUR (Coursera, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GENI (Genius Sports Limited): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 55.9% against 39.5%.
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
COURCOUR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GENIGENI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
GENIGENI on the Momentum factor, by 18 points.
Lower downside
COURCOUR on Risk Resilience, by 31 points.
Analyst upside
COURCOUR 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 | COUR | GENI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +80.1% | +61.5% | COUR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8% | +38.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 8 | 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 COUR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | COUR | 46 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | COURon balance | revenue growth 52.6% vs 4%; EPS growth -216.7% vs -33.3%; TTM ROE -17.7% vs -25.7%; gross margin 55.9% vs 27.4%; operating margin -17.8% vs -12.6% — COUR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 49 vs 48 |
| Technicals | GENI | Price vs 50-day -35.1% vs -5.4%; vs 200-day -17.7% vs 1.2% |
| Risk Resilience | COUR | Risk Resilience 53 vs 22 |
| Analyst expectations | COUR | Target upside 80.1% vs 61.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of COUR and GENI 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 10 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 COUR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28COUR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COUR +10
- 46 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- COUR +11
- 48 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- COUR +14
- 49 vs 35
- 90 sessions ago
- COUR +18
- 56 vs 38
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only COUR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.91%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
Only GENI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.10%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
COUR 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 -25.54%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.55%, 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.
- 1GENI closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to COUR's edge.
- 2GENI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3COUR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate COUR'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
COUR leads on balance| Metric | COUR | GENI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 52.6% | 4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -216.7% | -33.3% |
| Gross margin | 55.9% | 27.4% |
| Operating margin | -17.8% | -12.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -17.7% | -25.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.01 | 1.2 |
Performance
GENI leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | COUR | GENI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.2% | 10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.8% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -23.1% | 49.4% |
| Year to date | -36.1% | -42.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -48.9% | -47.2% |
Technicals
GENI has the stronger structure| Metric | COUR | GENI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.6 | 44.5 |
| ADX (14) | 15.3 | 13.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -35.1% | -5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -17.7% | 1.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 39.5% | 55.9% |
Risk
COUR is the more resilient| Metric | COUR | GENI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.35 | 1.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.98 | -0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.41 | -0.8 |
| Max drawdown | -49% | -66.8% |
| Current drawdown | -48.3% | -46.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 55.6% | 73.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -6.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, COUR or GENI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COUR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 46 against GENI's 36. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GENI 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 COUR or GENI the better buy right now?
COUR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COUR over GENI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COUR leads Quality by 31 points; COUR leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; GENI leads Momentum by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, COUR or GENI?
Analyst price targets imply +80.1% upside for COUR and +61.5% for GENI, so the Street currently favors COUR. 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, COUR or GENI?
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, COUR or GENI?
GENI 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, COUR or GENI?
GENI on the Momentum factor, by 18 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, COUR or GENI?
COUR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COUR on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 COUR more profitable than GENI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 55.9% vs 27.4%; operating margin -17.8% vs -12.6%; ttm roe -17.7% vs -25.7%. COUR leads on two measures and GENI 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 COUR's lead over GENI getting stronger or weaker?
COUR lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the COUR vs GENI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GENI closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to COUR's edge; GENI's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; COUR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 10-point move would eliminate COUR's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about COUR and GENI?
COUR: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GENI: 2 bullish / 0 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 COUR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GENI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare COUR and GENI 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.