CSGP vs DOCN Stock Comparison
Compare CSGP and DOCN across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CSGP and DOCN?
CSGP leads the current stock comparison as CoStar Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CoStar Group, Inc. vs DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.
CSGP leads
CSGP leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DOCN on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CSGP, and its lead is widening.
CoStar Group, Inc.
DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CSGP over DOCN, 52 versus 41 as of Sep 6, 2026. CSGP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while DOCN holds the stronger quality profile. CSGP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DOCN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CSGP today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CSGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CoStar Group, Inc. and DigitalOcean Holdings, 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 DOCN 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.
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 29CSGP +23
- Value30%46 vs 25CSGP +21
- Momentum25%52 vs 31CSGP +21
- Quality30%59 vs 72DOCN +13
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CSGP. CSGP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; DOCN keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 DOCN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CSGP (CoStar Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
DOCN (DigitalOcean Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 78.8% against 53.4%.
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
CSGPCSGP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
DOCNDOCN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CSGPCSGP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
CSGPCSGP on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
CSGPCSGP on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
DOCNDOCN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CSGP, analyst targets favor DOCN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CSGP | DOCN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29.6% | +43.9% | DOCN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +72.4% | +63.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 11 | 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 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 41 |
| Fundamentals | DOCNon balance | revenue growth 3.1% vs 9%; EPS growth 18.2% vs 100%; gross margin 76.5% vs 57.2%; operating margin 2.2% vs 14.8% — DOCN takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CSGP | Value 46 vs 25 |
| Technicals | DOCN | Price vs 50-day 2% vs -9.8%; vs 200-day -29.3% vs 15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CSGP | Risk Resilience 52 vs 29 |
| Analyst expectations | DOCN | Target upside 29.6% vs 43.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CSGP and DOCN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CSGP +11
- 52 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- CSGP +9
- 52 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- CSGP +7
- 55 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- CSGP +9
- 46 vs 37
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Jul 24 when CSGP moved ahead of DOCN.
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 (28.42%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (7.65%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
DOCN 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 +2.81%, 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.
- 1DOCN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge.
- 2DOCN'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
DOCN leads on balance| Metric | CSGP | DOCN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.1% | 9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.2% | 100% |
| Gross margin | 76.5% | 57.2% |
| Operating margin | 2.2% | 14.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.9% | 54.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.15 | 1.61 |
Performance
DOCN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CSGP | DOCN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.1% | 1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | -9.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -8.8% | -33.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -36.1% | 106.6% |
| Year to date | -54% | 133.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -64.8% | 251% |
Technicals
DOCN has the stronger structure| Metric | CSGP | DOCN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.5 | 31.3 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2% | -9.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.3% | 15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53.4% | 78.8% |
Risk
CSGP is the more resilient| Metric | CSGP | DOCN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.25 | 2.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | -2.28 | 1.85 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.91 | 3.87 |
| Max drawdown | -69.7% | -42.1% |
| Current drawdown | -65.5% | -38% |
| Annualized volatility | 44% | 84% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.5% | -6.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CSGP or DOCN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CSGP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 52 against DOCN's 41. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. DOCN is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CSGP or DOCN the better buy right now?
CSGP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CSGP over DOCN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CSGP leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; CSGP leads Value by 21 points; CSGP leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CSGP or DOCN?
Analyst price targets imply +29.6% upside for CSGP and +43.9% for DOCN, so the Street currently favors DOCN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CSGP. 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, CSGP or DOCN?
CSGP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CSGP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 DOCN?
DOCN 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 DOCN?
CSGP on the Momentum factor, by 21 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 DOCN?
CSGP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSGP on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 DOCN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 76.5% vs 57.2%; operating margin 2.2% vs 14.8%; ttm roe 0.9% vs 54.7%. 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 DOCN getting stronger or weaker?
CSGP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-24, when CSGP moved ahead of DOCN.
What would change the CSGP vs DOCN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DOCN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to CSGP's edge; DOCN'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 DOCN?
CSGP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral. DOCN: 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 DOCN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CSGP and DOCN 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.