CUZ vs HIW Stock Comparison
Cousins Properties Incorporated vs Highwoods Properties, Inc.
CUZ leads
CUZ leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from HIW.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CUZ, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cousins Properties Incorporated
Highwoods Properties, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CUZ over HIW, 54 versus 52 as of Sep 5, 2026. CUZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value. CUZ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CUZ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CUZ lead: Reversed — HIW led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CUZ now leads by 2.
Compare Cousins Properties Incorporated and Highwoods Properties, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CUZ and HIW 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.
- Value30%64 vs 59CUZ +5
- Quality30%47 vs 45Even
- Momentum25%44 vs 43Even
- Risk Resilience15%66 vs 66Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CUZ. CUZ’s edge is concentrated in value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +7
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
CUZ's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CUZ and HIW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CUZ (Cousins Properties Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
HIW (Highwoods Properties, Inc.): the counter-case, on technicals.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
CUZCUZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CUZCUZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CUZCUZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
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 | CUZ | HIW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.9% | +0% | CUZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.5% | +22.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | Even | 54 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 2.1% vs 1.1%; EPS growth 206.7% vs 193.1%; gross margin 65.9% vs 67.2%; operating margin 18.9% vs 25.8% |
| Valuation | CUZ | Value 64 vs 59 |
| Technicals | HIW | Price vs 50-day -4.2% vs -2%; vs 200-day 10.6% vs 15.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 66 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | CUZ | Target upside 7.9% vs 0% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CUZ and HIW 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 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 been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 CUZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3CUZ lead: Reversed — HIW led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CUZ now leads by 2.
- Today
- CUZ +2
- 54 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- HIW +5
- 50 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- CUZ +1
- 59 vs 58
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 6 when HIW moved ahead of CUZ.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (14.87%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.68%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CUZ 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.48%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.58%, 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.
- 1HIW closes the Value gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUZ's edge.
- 2HIW's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CUZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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 | CUZ | HIW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 2.1% | 1.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 206.7% | 193.1% |
| Gross margin | 65.9% | 67.2% |
| Operating margin | 18.9% | 25.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 0.1% | 7.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.83 | 1.47 |
Technicals
HIW has the stronger structure| Metric | CUZ | HIW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 44.7 | 44.3 |
| ADX (14) | 18.4 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.2% | -2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.6% | 15.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.5% | 19.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CUZ | HIW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | 0.51 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.01 | -0.01 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.01 | -0.02 |
| Max drawdown | -27.9% | -36.6% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.1% | 27.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CUZ or HIW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CUZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against HIW's 52. The edge comes from 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 CUZ or HIW the better buy right now?
CUZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CUZ over HIW?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CUZ leads Value by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CUZ or HIW?
Analyst price targets imply +7.9% upside for CUZ and +0% for HIW, 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, CUZ or HIW?
CUZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CUZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, CUZ or HIW?
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, CUZ or HIW?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CUZ or HIW?
CUZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CUZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CUZ more profitable than HIW?
HIW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 65.9% vs 67.2%; operating margin 18.9% vs 25.8%; ttm roe 0.1% vs 7.1%.
Is CUZ's lead over HIW getting stronger or weaker?
CUZ lead: Reversed — HIW led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CUZ now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-06, when HIW moved ahead of CUZ.
What would change the CUZ vs HIW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: HIW closes the Value gap — currently 5 points behind, the largest single contributor to CUZ's edge; HIW's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CUZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 CUZ and HIW?
CUZ: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HIW: 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 CUZ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HIW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CUZ and HIW 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.