CSGP vs DDOG Stock Comparison
Compare CSGP and DDOG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CSGP and DDOG?
CSGP leads the current stock comparison as CoStar Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CoStar Group, Inc. vs Datadog, Inc.
CSGP leads
CSGP leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CSGP, and its lead is widening.
CoStar Group, Inc.
Datadog, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CSGP over DDOG, 52 versus 39 as of Sep 6, 2026. CSGP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CSGP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CSGP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. CSGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CoStar Group, Inc. and Datadog, 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 CSGP and DDOG 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%52 vs 29CSGP +23
- Value30%46 vs 24CSGP +22
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 46CSGP +6
- Quality30%59 vs 60Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CSGP. CSGP’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.
CSGP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CSGP and DDOG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CSGP (CoStar Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
DDOG (Datadog, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 71.1% against 53.4%.
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
CSGPCSGP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CSGPCSGP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CSGPCSGP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
CSGPCSGP on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
CSGPCSGP on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CSGPCSGP 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 | CSGP | DDOG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +17.3% | CSGP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.4% | +72.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 30 | 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 CSGP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CSGP | 52 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 3.1% vs 11.4%; EPS growth 18.2% vs -20%; gross margin 76.5% vs 79.5%; operating margin 2.2% vs 0.4% |
| Valuation | CSGP | Value 46 vs 24 |
| Technicals | DDOG | Price vs 50-day 2% vs -14.6%; vs 200-day -29.3% vs 20.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CSGP | Risk Resilience 52 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | CSGP | Target upside 29.6% vs 17.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CSGP and DDOG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CSGP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5CSGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CSGP +13
- 52 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- CSGP +10
- 52 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- CSGP +9
- 55 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- DDOG +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when CSGP moved ahead of DDOG.
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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (44.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.46%)
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (41.31%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.23%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
DDOG 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 -2.43%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.85%, 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.
- 1DDOG closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge.
- 2DDOG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CSGP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
Split| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 11.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.2% | -20% |
| Gross margin | 76.5% | 79.5% |
| Operating margin | 2.2% | 0.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.9% | 4.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 0.29 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | -10.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | -9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.8% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -36.1% | 69.3% |
| Year to date | -54% | 56.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -64.8% | 60.6% |
Technicals
DDOG has the stronger structure| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.5 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 17.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | -14.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.3% | 20.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53.4% | 71.1% |
Risk
CSGP is the more resilient| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 1.18 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.28 | 0.97 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | 1.64 |
| Max drawdown | -69.7% | -48.6% |
| Current drawdown | -65.5% | -26.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 44% | 69.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CSGP or DDOG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CSGP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 52 against DDOG's 39. 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 CSGP or DDOG the better buy right now?
CSGP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CSGP over DDOG?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CSGP leads Momentum by 23 points; CSGP leads Value by 22 points; CSGP leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CSGP or DDOG?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for CSGP and +17.3% for DDOG, so the Street currently favors CSGP. 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, CSGP or DDOG?
CSGP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSGP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, CSGP or DDOG?
CSGP 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, CSGP or DDOG?
CSGP on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, CSGP or DDOG?
CSGP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSGP on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 CSGP more profitable than DDOG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 76.5% vs 79.5%; operating margin 2.2% vs 0.4%; ttm roe 0.9% vs 4.6%. Each name leads 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 CSGP's lead over DDOG getting stronger or weaker?
CSGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 13 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when CSGP moved ahead of DDOG.
What would change the CSGP vs DDOG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DDOG closes the Momentum gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge; DDOG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CSGP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CSGP and DDOG?
CSGP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. DDOG: 1 bullish / 1 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 CSGP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DDOG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CSGP and DDOG 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.