CPF vs EWBC Stock Comparison
Compare CPF and EWBC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPF and EWBC?
CPF leads the current stock comparison as Central Pacific Financial Corp., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Central Pacific Financial Corp. vs East West Bancorp, Inc.
CPF leads
CPF leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from EWBC. Wall Street currently favors EWBC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CPF, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Central Pacific Financial Corp.
East West Bancorp, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CPF over EWBC, 58 versus 53 as of Sep 6, 2026. CPF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CPF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EWBC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CPF lead: Reversed — EWBC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPF now leads by 5.
Compare Central Pacific Financial Corp. and East West Bancorp, 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 CPF and EWBC 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.
- Momentum25%47 vs 35CPF +12
- Value30%51 vs 47CPF +4
- Quality30%71 vs 68Even
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 66Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CPF. CPF’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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.
CPF's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPF and EWBC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CPF (Central Pacific Financial Corp.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
EWBC (East West Bancorp, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
CPFCPF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EWBCEWBC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CPFCPF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
CPFCPF on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
CPFCPF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EWBCEWBC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CPF, analyst targets favor EWBC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CPF | EWBC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -21.4% | +8.4% | EWBC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CPF. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CPF | 58 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | EWBCon balance | revenue growth -52% vs 2.4%; EPS growth 1.3% vs 2.3%; TTM ROE 14% vs 16.2%; gross margin 76% vs 62.2%; operating margin 25.6% vs 39.4% — EWBC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CPF | Value 51 vs 47 |
| Technicals | CPF | Price vs 50-day -0.7% vs -0.4%; vs 200-day 11.3% vs 9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 63 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | EWBC | Target upside -21.4% vs 8.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPF and EWBC 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)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 CPF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CPF lead: Reversed — EWBC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPF now leads by 5.
- Today
- CPF +5
- 58 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- CPF +4
- 54 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- EWBC +2
- 60 vs 62
- 90 sessions ago
- CPF +9
- 65 vs 56
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 12 when EWBC 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.
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
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.49%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EWBC 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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.12%, 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.
- 1EWBC closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPF's edge.
- 2EWBC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CPF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
EWBC leads on balance| Metric | CPF | EWBC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -52% | 2.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.3% | 2.3% |
| Gross margin | 76% | 62.2% |
| Operating margin | 25.6% | 39.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14% | 16.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.17 | 0.43 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CPF | EWBC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | 1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.5% | 3.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 21.3% | 23% |
| Year to date | 22.6% | 16.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.4% | 22.8% |
Technicals
CPF has the stronger structure| Metric | CPF | EWBC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.9 | 35.1 |
| ADX (14) | 19.4 | 15.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.7% | -0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.3% | 9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.4% | 18.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CPF | EWBC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.49 | 0.81 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.76 | 0.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.06 | 0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -12.3% | -15.7% |
| Current drawdown | -4.5% | -4.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.2% | 24.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPF or EWBC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CPF is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 58 against EWBC's 53. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 CPF or EWBC the better buy right now?
CPF 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CPF over EWBC?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CPF leads Momentum by 12 points; CPF leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPF or EWBC?
Analyst price targets imply -21.4% upside for CPF and +8.4% for EWBC, so the Street currently favors EWBC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CPF. 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, CPF or EWBC?
CPF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CPF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, CPF or EWBC?
EWBC 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, CPF or EWBC?
CPF on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, CPF or EWBC?
CPF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CPF more profitable than EWBC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 76% vs 62.2%; operating margin 25.6% vs 39.4%; ttm roe 14% vs 16.2%. CPF leads on one measure and EWBC 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 CPF's lead over EWBC getting stronger or weaker?
CPF lead: Reversed — EWBC led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CPF now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-12, when EWBC moved ahead of CPF.
What would change the CPF vs EWBC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EWBC closes the Momentum gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to CPF's edge; EWBC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CPF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CPF and EWBC?
CPF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. EWBC: 1 bullish / 1 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 CPF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EWBC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPF and EWBC 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.