CTSH vs SPY Stock Comparison
CTSH currently leads SPY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 69 vs 66. The clearest difference is value, while SPY has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CTSH and SPY?
CTSH leads the current stock comparison as Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation vs State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
CTSH leads
CTSH leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from SPY.
Fragile: 2 of 4 evidence groups support CTSH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation
State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CTSH over SPY, 69 versus 66 as of Oct 21, 2026. CTSH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while SPY holds the stronger quality profile. CTSH also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CTSH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CTSH lead: Reversed — SPY led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTSH now leads by 3.
Compare Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation and State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF 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 CTSH and SPY 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.
- Value73 vs 41CTSH +32
- Quality57 vs 84SPY +27
- Risk Resilience61 vs 88SPY +27
- Momentum82 vs 63CTSH +19
2 of 4 evidence groups favor CTSH. CTSH’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; SPY keeps a meaningful quality 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +16
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CTSH's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTSH and SPY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CTSH (Cognizant Technology Solutions Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
SPY (State Street SPDR S&P 500 ETF): the counter-case, on quality, 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
CTSHCTSH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
CTSHCTSH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
CTSHCTSH on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
SPYSPY on Risk Resilience, by 27 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CTSH | SPY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -9.3% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +69.7% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 4 covered evidence groups favor CTSH. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 69 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | CTSH | Value 73 vs 41 |
| Technicals | CTSH | Price vs 50-day 14.5% vs 0.6%; vs 200-day 11.7% vs 5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | SPY | Risk Resilience 61 vs 88 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTSH and SPY 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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)
- 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 CTSH.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CTSH lead: Reversed — SPY led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTSH now leads by 3.
- Today
- CTSH +3
- 69 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- CTSH +2
- 68 vs 66
- 30 sessions ago
- SPY +9
- 57 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- SPY +5
- 65 vs 70
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when CTSH moved ahead of SPY.
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only CTSH
- 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
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only SPY
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (0.92%)
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.2%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
CTSH 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.01%, AIQ +1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +4 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.
- 1SPY closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge.
- 2SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 | CTSH | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.3% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -2.2% | — |
| Gross margin | 32% | — |
| Operating margin | 15.8% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.9% | — |
| Debt to equity | 0.14 | — |
Performance
CTSH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CTSH | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 11.2% | -1.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 16.2% | -0.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 47.5% | 2.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | 9.2% |
| Year to date | -17.9% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.8% | 16.4% |
Technicals
CTSH has the stronger structure| Metric | CTSH | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 76.9 | 56.2 |
| ADX (14) | 26.3 | 12.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14.5% | 0.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.7% | 5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.5% | 9% |
Risk
SPY is the more resilient| Metric | CTSH | SPY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 1 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.19 | 0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.28 | 1.39 |
| Max drawdown | -55.3% | -9.1% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -1.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.1% | 12.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTSH or SPY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CTSH is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 69 against SPY's 66. The edge comes from value and momentum. SPY 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 CTSH or SPY the better buy right now?
CTSH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CTSH over SPY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CTSH leads Value by 32 points; SPY leads Quality by 27 points; SPY leads Risk Resilience by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTSH or SPY?
Analyst price targets imply -9.3% upside for CTSH and not covered for SPY. 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, CTSH or SPY?
CTSH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CTSH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 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, CTSH or SPY?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CTSH or SPY?
CTSH on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, CTSH or SPY?
SPY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPY on Risk Resilience, by 27 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 CTSH more profitable than SPY?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is CTSH's lead over SPY getting stronger or weaker?
CTSH lead: Reversed — SPY led by 9 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CTSH now leads by 3. 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 2026-10-14, when CTSH moved ahead of SPY.
What would change the CTSH vs SPY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPY closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to CTSH's edge; SPY generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CTSH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 CTSH and SPY?
CTSH: 5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. SPY: 4 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 CTSH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SPY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.