CWAN vs DOCU Stock Comparison
DOCU currently leads CWAN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 71 vs 50. The clearest difference is value, while CWAN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CWAN and DOCU?
DOCU leads the current stock comparison as DocuSign, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc. vs DocuSign, Inc.
DOCU leads
DOCU leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, and the lead has widened from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CWAN on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DOCU, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.
DocuSign, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DOCU over CWAN, 71 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. DOCU's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CWAN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. DOCU also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CWAN. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DOCU today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. DOCU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc. and DocuSign, 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 CWAN and DOCU 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.
- Value36 vs 68DOCU +32
- Quality53 vs 75DOCU +22
- Risk Resilience74 vs 52CWAN +22
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DOCU. DOCU’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CWAN keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DOCU's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CWAN and DOCU both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DOCU (DocuSign, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CWAN (Clearwater Analytics Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
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
DOCUDOCU on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CWANCWAN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DOCUDOCU on the peer-relative Value factor, by 32 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CWANCWAN on Risk Resilience, by 22 points.
Analyst upside
CWANCWAN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DOCU, analyst targets favor CWAN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CWAN | DOCU | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | 0% | -18.4% | CWAN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +30.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 8 | 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 DOCU. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DOCU | 50 vs 71 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 1.7% vs -0.8%; EPS growth 76.5% vs -11.1%; TTM ROE -2.4% vs 16.4%; gross margin 66% vs 79.4% |
| Valuation | DOCU | Value 36 vs 68 |
| Technicals | DOCU | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs 21.2%; vs 200-day 10.2% vs 44% |
| Risk Resilience | CWAN | Risk Resilience 74 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CWAN | Target upside 0% vs -18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CWAN and DOCU 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 wide at 21 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 DOCU.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20DOCU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DOCU +21
- 50 vs 71
- 7 sessions ago
- DOCU +21
- 50 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- DOCU +16
- 50 vs 66
- 90 sessions ago
- DOCU +17
- 50 vs 67
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 25 when DOCU moved ahead of CWAN.
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.
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
6 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DOCU
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (24.71%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.52%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
DOCU 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 +1.49%, 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.
- 1CWAN closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOCU's edge.
- 2CWAN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3DOCU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 | CWAN | DOCU |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 1.7% | -0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 76.5% | -11.1% |
| Gross margin | 66% | 79.4% |
| Operating margin | -0.7% | 10.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -2.4% | 16.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.42 | 0.1 |
Performance
DOCU leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CWAN | DOCU |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | 11% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | 20.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.9% | 62.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.4% | 66.2% |
| Year to date | 1.8% | 9.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 15.8% |
Technicals
DOCU has the stronger structure| Metric | CWAN | DOCU |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.5 | 76.4 |
| ADX (14) | 25.8 | 31 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | 21.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.2% | 44% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 4.4% | 39.3% |
Risk
CWAN is the more resilient| Metric | CWAN | DOCU |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.44 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.1 | 0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.42 | 0.78 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -42.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 48.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CWAN or DOCU?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DOCU is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 71 against CWAN's 50. The edge comes from value and quality. CWAN is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 CWAN or DOCU the better buy right now?
DOCU carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 DOCU over CWAN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DOCU leads Value by 32 points; DOCU leads Quality by 22 points; CWAN leads Risk Resilience by 22 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CWAN or DOCU?
Analyst price targets imply 0% upside for CWAN and -18.4% for DOCU, so the Street currently favors CWAN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DOCU. 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, CWAN or DOCU?
DOCU is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DOCU 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, CWAN or DOCU?
CWAN 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, CWAN or DOCU?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, CWAN or DOCU?
CWAN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CWAN on Risk Resilience, by 22 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 CWAN more profitable than DOCU?
DOCU leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 66% vs 79.4%; operating margin -0.7% vs 10.6%; ttm roe -2.4% vs 16.4%.
Is DOCU's lead over CWAN getting stronger or weaker?
DOCU lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-25, when DOCU moved ahead of CWAN.
What would change the CWAN vs DOCU verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CWAN closes the Value gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to DOCU's edge; CWAN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; DOCU's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 CWAN and DOCU?
CWAN: No active signals. DOCU: 6 bullish / 2 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. On DOCU it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CWAN and DOCU 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.