CSR vs CUZ Stock Comparison
CUZ currently leads CSR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 48. The clearest difference is value, while CSR has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CSR and CUZ?
CUZ leads the current stock comparison as Cousins Properties Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Centerspace vs Cousins Properties Incorporated
CUZ leads
CUZ leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support CUZ, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Centerspace
Cousins Properties Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CUZ over CSR, 55 versus 48 as of Oct 21, 2026. CUZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CSR holds the stronger momentum profile. CUZ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CUZ today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. CUZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Centerspace and Cousins Properties Incorporated across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CSR and CUZ 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.
- Value42 vs 64CUZ +22
- Quality29 vs 47CUZ +18
- Momentum64 vs 50CSR +14
- Risk Resilience71 vs 62CSR +9
5 of 6 evidence groups favor CUZ. CUZ’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CSR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +24
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
CUZ's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CSR and CUZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CUZ (Cousins Properties Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CSR (Centerspace): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience.
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
CUZCUZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CUZCUZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CUZCUZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
CSRCSR on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
CSRCSR on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
CUZCUZ 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 | CSR | CUZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.3% | +18.4% | CUZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +35.8% | +21.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CSR | CUZ |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.92% | -2.99% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.800 | $1.490 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $3.080 | $1.280 |
| Years increased | 4 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (1) |
| Cohort rank | #25 | not ranked |
CSR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 1.92% a year against CUZ's -2.99%. CSR never reduced its regular dividend in the window; CUZ did in 1 year.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CUZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CUZ | 48 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | CUZ | revenue growth 1.1% vs 2.1%; EPS growth 92.1% vs 206.7%; gross margin 38.7% vs 65.9%; operating margin 8.6% vs 18.9% |
| Valuation | CUZ | Value 42 vs 64 |
| Technicals | CUZ | Price vs 50-day 2.1% vs -2.7%; vs 200-day -6.4% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CSR | Risk Resilience 71 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | CUZ | Target upside 14.3% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CSR and CUZ 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CUZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CUZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CUZ +7
- 48 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- CUZ +5
- 47 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- CUZ +16
- 38 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CUZ +9
- 41 vs 50
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CSR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.98%)
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only CUZ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.02%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
CSR 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 +0.09%, AIQ +6 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.22%, 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.
- 1CSR closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUZ's edge.
- 2CSR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CUZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate CUZ'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
CUZ leads on balance| Metric | CSR | CUZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.1% | 2.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 92.1% | 206.7% |
| Gross margin | 38.7% | 65.9% |
| Operating margin | 8.6% | 18.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 3% | 0.1% |
| Debt to equity | 1.44 | 0.83 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CSR | CUZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.2% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | -3.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 0.2% | -11% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.5% | 12.9% |
| Year to date | -15.9% | 7.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.4% | 4.9% |
Technicals
CUZ has the stronger structure| Metric | CSR | CUZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.1 | 51.6 |
| ADX (14) | 13.4 | 18.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.1% | -2.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.4% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.8% | 25.7% |
Risk
CSR is the more resilient| Metric | CSR | CUZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.58 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.38 | 0.17 |
| Max drawdown | -23.9% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -18.5% | -14% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CSR or CUZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CUZ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 55 against CSR's 48. The edge comes from value and quality. CSR is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CSR or CUZ the better buy right now?
CUZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 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 CUZ over CSR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CUZ leads Value by 22 points; CUZ leads Quality by 18 points; CSR leads Momentum by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CSR or CUZ?
Analyst price targets imply +14.3% upside for CSR and +18.4% for CUZ, so the Street currently favors CUZ. 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, CSR or CUZ?
CUZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CUZ 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, CSR or CUZ?
CUZ 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, CSR or CUZ?
CSR on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, CSR or CUZ?
CSR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CSR on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 CSR more profitable than CUZ?
CUZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.7% vs 65.9%; operating margin 8.6% vs 18.9%; ttm roe 3% vs 0.1%.
Is CUZ's lead over CSR getting stronger or weaker?
CUZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CSR vs CUZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CSR closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUZ's edge; CSR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CUZ's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate CUZ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CSR and CUZ?
CSR: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CUZ: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 CSR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CUZ it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CSR and CUZ 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.