CSGP vs DDOG Stock Comparison
CSGP currently leads DDOG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 43. The clearest difference is momentum.
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 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from DDOG.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CSGP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CoStar Group, Inc.
Datadog, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CSGP over DDOG, 59 versus 43 as of Oct 21, 2026. CSGP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. CSGP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CSGP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CSGP lead: Reversed — DDOG led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CSGP now leads by 16.
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 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 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.
- Momentum74 vs 42CSGP +32
- Value46 vs 24CSGP +22
- Risk Resilience58 vs 46CSGP +12
- Quality59 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 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
CSGP's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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, 51.9% against 44.4%.
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 most heavily.
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 32 points.
Lower downside
CSGPCSGP on Risk Resilience, by 12 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 | +16% | -3.5% | CSGP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.9% | +72.5% | 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 | 59 vs 43 |
| 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 8.3% vs 10.3%; vs 200-day -15.6% vs 33% |
| Risk Resilience | CSGP | Risk Resilience 58 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | CSGP | Target upside 16% vs -3.5% |
✓ 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 is sensitive to small changes. Treat the lead as provisional and watch the flip conditions below.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- 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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20CSGP lead: Reversed — DDOG led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CSGP now leads by 16.
- Today
- CSGP +16
- 59 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- CSGP +12
- 59 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- DDOG +9
- 47 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- CSGP +10
- 52 vs 42
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when DDOG moved ahead of CSGP.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CSGP
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.81%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DDOG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (28.36%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.15%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CSGP 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 -0.45%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +6.5%, 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.
- 1DDOG closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge.
- 2DDOG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CSGP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, 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) | 10.2% | -9.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.9% | 3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.2% | 4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.7% | 98.3% |
| Year to date | -50.8% | 88.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -56.6% | 69.6% |
Technicals
DDOG has the stronger structure| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.7 | 41.1 |
| ADX (14) | 24.9 | 26.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | 10.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -15.6% | 33% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 44.4% | 51.9% |
Risk
CSGP is the more resilient| Metric | CSGP | DDOG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.21 | 1.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.61 | 1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.12 | 1.72 |
| Max drawdown | -65.5% | -48.6% |
| Current drawdown | -57.8% | -12.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.9% | 70.1% |
| 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 Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against DDOG's 43. 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 Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CSGP over DDOG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CSGP leads Momentum by 32 points; CSGP leads Value by 22 points; CSGP leads Risk Resilience by 12 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 +16% upside for CSGP and -3.5% 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 32 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, 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 12 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 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: Reversed — DDOG led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CSGP now leads by 16. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-21, when DDOG moved ahead of CSGP.
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 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge; DDOG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CSGP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — Quality and Value carry the heaviest weights in the composite, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CSGP and DDOG?
CSGP: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DDOG: 3 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
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.