CPNG vs EXPE Stock Comparison
Compare CPNG and EXPE across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CPNG and EXPE?
EXPE leads the current stock comparison as Expedia Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coupang, Inc. vs Expedia Group, Inc.
EXPE leads
EXPE leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CPNG on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EXPE, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coupang, Inc.
Expedia Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EXPE over CPNG, 44 versus 36 as of Sep 11, 2026. EXPE's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while CPNG holds the stronger value profile. EXPE also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CPNG. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EXPE today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. EXPE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coupang, Inc. and Expedia Group, 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 CPNG and EXPE 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.
- Quality14 vs 70EXPE +56
- Value60 vs 44CPNG +16
- Risk Resilience49 vs 39CPNG +10
- Momentum24 vs 15CPNG +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EXPE. EXPE’s edge is concentrated in quality; CPNG 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 -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
EXPE's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CPNG and EXPE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EXPE (Expedia Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
CPNG (Coupang, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, momentum.
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
EXPEEXPE on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EXPEEXPE on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CPNGCPNG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
CPNGCPNG on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
CPNGCPNG on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
CPNGCPNG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EXPE, analyst targets favor CPNG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CPNG | EXPE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +67.9% | +13.4% | CPNG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.4% | +59.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 15 | 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 EXPE. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EXPE | 36 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | EXPE | revenue growth 4.1% vs 25.9%; EPS growth -113.3% vs 149.4%; TTM ROE -18.8% vs 184.8%; gross margin 28.4% vs 90.4%; operating margin -1.8% vs 18.8% |
| Valuation | CPNG | Value 60 vs 44 |
| Technicals | EXPE | Price vs 50-day -8.4% vs -5%; vs 200-day -23.2% vs 6.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CPNG | Risk Resilience 49 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | CPNG | Target upside 67.9% vs 13.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CPNG and EXPE 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 8 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EXPE.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EXPE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EXPE +8
- 36 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- EXPE +11
- 39 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- EXPE +20
- 41 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- EXPE +18
- 44 vs 62
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 / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (15.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.00%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.78%)
EXPE 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 +3.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.43%, 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.
- 1CPNG closes the Quality gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPE's edge.
- 2CPNG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EXPE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate EXPE'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
EXPE leads on balance| Metric | CPNG | EXPE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.1% | 25.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -113.3% | 149.4% |
| Gross margin | 28.4% | 90.4% |
| Operating margin | -1.8% | 18.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -18.8% | 184.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.89 | 4.7 |
Performance
EXPE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CPNG | EXPE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.1% | -10.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -15% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3% | 26.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -21.8% | 20.2% |
| Year to date | -35.9% | -2.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -51.7% | 27.5% |
Technicals
EXPE has the stronger structure| Metric | CPNG | EXPE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.5 | 30.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.2 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.4% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.2% | 6.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.4% | 48.5% |
Risk
CPNG is the more resilient| Metric | CPNG | EXPE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.35 | 1.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.56 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.19 | 0.97 |
| Max drawdown | -56.3% | -37.4% |
| Current drawdown | -56.3% | -18.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 46.4% | 50.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CPNG or EXPE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EXPE is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against CPNG's 36. The edge comes from quality. CPNG 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 CPNG or EXPE the better buy right now?
EXPE carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EXPE over CPNG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EXPE leads Quality by 56 points; CPNG leads Value by 16 points; CPNG leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CPNG or EXPE?
Analyst price targets imply +67.9% upside for CPNG and +13.4% for EXPE, so the Street currently favors CPNG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EXPE. 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, CPNG or EXPE?
CPNG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CPNG 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, CPNG or EXPE?
EXPE 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, CPNG or EXPE?
CPNG on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, CPNG or EXPE?
CPNG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CPNG on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CPNG more profitable than EXPE?
EXPE leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 28.4% vs 90.4%; operating margin -1.8% vs 18.8%; ttm roe -18.8% vs 184.8%.
Is EXPE's lead over CPNG getting stronger or weaker?
EXPE lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CPNG vs EXPE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CPNG closes the Quality gap — currently 56 points behind, the largest single contributor to EXPE's edge; CPNG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EXPE's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 12 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate EXPE's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CPNG and EXPE?
CPNG: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. EXPE: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 CPNG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EXPE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CPNG and EXPE 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.