ABBV vs PEP Stock Comparison
AbbVie Inc. vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PEP.
AbbVie Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over ABBV, 55 versus 52 as of Sep 2, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ABBV holds the stronger momentum profile. PEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare AbbVie Inc. and PepsiCo, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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%36 vs 45PEP +9
- Momentum25%67 vs 59ABBV +8
- Risk Resilience15%44 vs 52PEP +8
- Quality30%60 vs 64PEP +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ABBV keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PEP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABBV and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ABBV (AbbVie Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
PEPPEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
ABBVABBV on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
PEPPEP 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 | ABBV | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.8% | +11.6% | PEP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.3% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP. 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 | 52 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | PEPon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs 24.4%; EPS growth 4.2% vs 28.2%; ROE -136.6% vs 50.4%; gross margin 74.1% vs 54%; operating margin 29.8% vs 15% — PEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 36 vs 45 |
| Technicals | ABBV | Price vs 50-day 2.7% vs 1%; vs 200-day 12.6% vs -5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | PEP | Risk Resilience 44 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | PEP | Target upside 7.8% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABBV and PEP 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 PEP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PEP +3
- 52 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- ABBV +3
- 54 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- PEP +5
- 47 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- ABBV +6
- 56 vs 50
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when PEP moved ahead of ABBV.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.87%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ABBV 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 -0.23%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.99%, 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.
- 1ABBV closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2ABBV generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PEP 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
PEP leads on balance| Metric | ABBV | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | 28.2% |
| Gross margin | 74.1% | 54% |
| Operating margin | 29.8% | 15% |
| Return on equity | -136.6% | 50.4% |
| Debt to equity | -11.93 | 2.41 |
Technicals
ABBV has the stronger structure| Metric | ABBV | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 57.6 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 23.5 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.7% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 12.6% | -5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.1% | 16.5% |
Risk
PEP is the more resilient| Metric | ABBV | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.09 | -0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.78 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.29 | -0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -19.2% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.6% | -17.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.6% | 21.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABBV or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 55 against ABBV's 52. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ABBV 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 ABBV or PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 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 PEP over ABBV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PEP leads Value by 9 points; ABBV leads Momentum by 8 points; PEP leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABBV or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +7.8% upside for ABBV and +11.6% for PEP, so the Street currently favors PEP. 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, ABBV or PEP?
PEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, ABBV or PEP?
PEP 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, ABBV or PEP?
ABBV on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, ABBV or PEP?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 ABBV more profitable than PEP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 74.1% vs 54%; operating margin 29.8% vs 15%; roe -136.6% vs 50.4%. ABBV leads on two measures and PEP 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 PEP's lead over ABBV getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when PEP moved ahead of ABBV.
What would change the ABBV vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ABBV closes the Value gap — currently 9 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; ABBV generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PEP 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 ABBV and PEP?
ABBV: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PEP: 0 bullish / 2 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 ABBV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ABBV and PEP 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.