ABEV vs ACI Stock Comparison
Compare ABEV and ACI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ABEV and ACI?
ABEV leads the current stock comparison as Ambev S.A., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ambev S.A. vs Albertsons Companies, Inc.
ABEV leads
ABEV leads by 21 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ACI on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ABEV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ambev S.A.
Albertsons Companies, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABEV over ACI, 62 versus 41 as of Sep 11, 2026. ABEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while ACI holds the stronger value profile. ABEV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ACI. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABEV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ABEV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ambev S.A. and Albertsons Companies, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
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 15ABEV +55
- Momentum78 vs 37ABEV +41
- Value43 vs 74ACI +31
- Risk Resilience56 vs 35ABEV +21
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ABEV. ABEV’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; ACI keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ABEV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
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
ABEV (Ambev S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
ACI (Albertsons Companies, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 28.9% against 19%.
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
ABEVABEV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ACIACI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ACIACI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
ABEVABEV on the Momentum factor, by 41 points.
Lower downside
ABEVABEV on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
ACIACI on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ABEV, analyst targets favor ACI. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ABEV | ACI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.3% | +25.8% | ACI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.5% | +85.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 11 | 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 ABEV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ABEV | 62 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -10.3% vs 23.2%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 118.1%; TTM ROE 18.1% vs 2.9%; gross margin 50.1% vs 26.5% |
| Valuation | ACI | Value 43 vs 74 |
| Technicals | ABEV | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -5.7%; vs 200-day 3.9% vs -26.1% |
| Risk Resilience | ABEV | Risk Resilience 56 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | ACI | Target upside -1.3% vs 25.8% |
✓ 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 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 ABEV.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ABEV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ABEV +21
- 62 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- ABEV +17
- 62 vs 45
- 30 sessions ago
- ABEV +6
- 49 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- ABEV +10
- 50 vs 40
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.25%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (23.57%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
ABEV 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 -0.66%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.25%, 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.
- 1ACI closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge.
- 2ACI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ABEV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
Split| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.3% | 23.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 118.1% |
| Gross margin | 50.1% | 26.5% |
| Operating margin | 25.6% | 0.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.1% | 2.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 9.74 |
Performance
ABEV leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.8% | -2.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | -23.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.7% | -28.8% |
| Year to date | 23.1% | -31.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.2% | -39.2% |
Technicals
ABEV has the stronger structure| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.3 | 44.7 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 13.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -5.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.9% | -26.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19% | 28.9% |
Risk
ABEV is the more resilient| Metric | ABEV | ACI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.51 | -0.19 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.03 | -1.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.74 | -1.31 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -44.1% |
| Current drawdown | -11.4% | -40.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 38.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3.1% |
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, ABEV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against ACI's 41. The edge comes from quality and momentum. ACI is not without a case — it holds the better value 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?
ABEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 ABEV over ACI?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABEV leads Quality by 55 points; ABEV leads Momentum by 41 points; ACI leads Value by 31 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 -1.3% upside for ABEV and +25.8% for ACI, so the Street currently favors ACI. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ABEV. 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 31 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?
ACI 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?
ABEV 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 21 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 26.5%; operating margin 25.6% vs 0.7%; ttm roe 18.1% vs 2.9%.
Is ABEV's lead over ACI getting stronger or weaker?
ABEV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 21 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
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: ACI closes the Quality gap — currently 55 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge; ACI's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ABEV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ACI: 1 bullish / 3 bearish, 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.