ABEV vs ACI Stock Comparison
ACI currently leads ABEV in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 47 vs 46. The clearest difference is momentum, while ABEV has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between ABEV and ACI?
ACI leads the current stock comparison as Albertsons Companies, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ambev S.A. vs Albertsons Companies, Inc.
ACI leads
ACI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from ABEV. Wall Street currently favors ABEV on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support ACI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ambev S.A.
Albertsons Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ACI over ABEV, 47 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. ACI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while ABEV holds the stronger quality profile. ACI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ABEV. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. ACI lead: Reversed — ABEV led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACI now leads by 1.
Compare Ambev S.A. and Albertsons Companies, Inc. 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 ABEV and ACI 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.
- Quality70 vs 12ABEV +58
- Momentum25 vs 66ACI +41
- Value43 vs 73ACI +30
- Risk Resilience37 vs 32ABEV +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor ACI. ACI’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; ABEV keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
ACI's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABEV and ACI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ACI (Albertsons Companies, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ABEV (Ambev S.A.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 65.5% against 34.8%.
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
ACIACI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ABEVABEV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACIACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
ACIACI on the Momentum factor, by 41 points.
Lower downside
ABEVABEV on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
ABEVABEV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ACI, analyst targets favor ABEV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ABEV | ACI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +4.8% | ABEV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.1% | +65.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 12 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ACI. 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 | 46 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | ABEV | revenue growth -10.3% vs -24.2%; EPS growth -8.3% vs -35.3%; TTM ROE 18.1% vs -2.8%; gross margin 50.1% vs 27% |
| Valuation | ACI | Value 43 vs 73 |
| Technicals | ACI | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs 5.1%; vs 200-day -6.1% vs -12.3% |
| Risk Resilience | ABEV | Risk Resilience 37 vs 32 |
| Analyst expectations | ABEV | Target upside 15.8% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABEV and ACI 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 1 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 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 ACI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ACI lead: Reversed — ABEV led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACI now leads by 1.
- Today
- ACI +1
- 46 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- ABEV +9
- 58 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ABEV +21
- 59 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- ABEV +7
- 51 vs 44
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 26 when ACI moved ahead of ABEV.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only ABEV
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.18%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ACI
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.51%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
ACI 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 down over the latest session (price -0.37%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.27%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1ABEV closes the Momentum gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACI's edge.
- 2ABEV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ACI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
ABEV leads on balance| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.3% | -24.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | -35.3% |
| Gross margin | 50.1% | 27% |
| Operating margin | 25.6% | 0.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.1% | -2.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 11.11 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | -1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | 13.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.9% | 13.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.5% | -20.2% |
| Year to date | 12.6% | -23.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.9% | -29.5% |
Technicals
ACI has the stronger structure| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.9 | 63.1 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 32.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | 5.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.1% | -12.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 65.5% | 34.8% |
Risk
ABEV is the more resilient| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | -0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | -0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.98 | -0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -40.9% |
| Current drawdown | -18.9% | -29.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 37.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABEV or ACI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ACI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 47 against ABEV's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. ABEV 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 ABEV or ACI the better buy right now?
ACI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ACI over ABEV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABEV leads Quality by 58 points; ACI leads Momentum by 41 points; ACI leads Value by 30 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABEV or ACI?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for ABEV and +4.8% for ACI, so the Street currently favors ABEV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ACI. 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, ABEV or ACI?
ACI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, ABEV or ACI?
ABEV 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, ABEV or ACI?
ACI on the Momentum factor, by 41 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, ABEV or ACI?
ABEV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ABEV on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ABEV more profitable than ACI?
ABEV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.1% vs 27%; operating margin 25.6% vs 0.5%; ttm roe 18.1% vs -2.8%.
Is ACI's lead over ABEV getting stronger or weaker?
ACI lead: Reversed — ABEV led by 21 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; ACI now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-26, when ACI moved ahead of ABEV.
What would change the ABEV vs ACI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ABEV closes the Momentum gap — currently 41 points behind, the largest single contributor to ACI's edge; ABEV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ACI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 ABEV and ACI?
ABEV: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ACI: 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 ABEV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ACI it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ABEV and ACI 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.