ABEV vs BG Stock Comparison
ABEV currently leads BG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 40. The clearest difference is quality, while BG has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between ABEV and BG?
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 Bunge Global S.A.
ABEV leads
ABEV leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 20 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BG on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ABEV, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ambev S.A.
Bunge Global S.A.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABEV over BG, 46 versus 40 as of Oct 31, 2026. ABEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while BG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. ABEV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BG. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ABEV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. ABEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ambev S.A. and Bunge Global S.A. 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 BG 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 23ABEV +47
- Risk Resilience37 vs 55BG +18
- Value43 vs 60BG +17
- Momentum25 vs 28Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ABEV. ABEV’s edge is concentrated in quality; BG keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
ABEV's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABEV and BG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ABEV (Ambev S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
BG (Bunge Global S.A.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
BGBG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BGBG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BGBG on Risk Resilience, by 18 points.
Analyst upside
BGBG 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 BG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ABEV | BG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.8% | +44.9% | BG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.1% | +28.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 2 | 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 | 46 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | ABEVon balance | revenue growth -10.3% vs 10%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 8.9%; TTM ROE 18.1% vs 6.3%; gross margin 50.1% vs 4.9%; operating margin 25.6% vs 2.3% — ABEV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BG | Value 43 vs 60 |
| Technicals | ABEV | Price vs 50-day -12.1% vs -13.2%; vs 200-day -6.1% vs -13.5% |
| Risk Resilience | BG | Risk Resilience 37 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | BG | Target upside 15.8% vs 44.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABEV and BG 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28ABEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ABEV +6
- 46 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- ABEV +16
- 58 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- ABEV +20
- 59 vs 39
- 90 sessions ago
- ABEV +1
- 51 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when ABEV moved ahead of BG.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only BG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.28%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
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 +0.65%, 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.
- 1BG closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge.
- 2BG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3ABEV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ABEV's advantage entirely.
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 | BG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.3% | 10% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 8.9% |
| Gross margin | 50.1% | 4.9% |
| Operating margin | 25.6% | 2.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.1% | 6.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 1.05 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ABEV | BG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | -1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -10.9% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.5% | -18.9% |
| Year to date | 12.6% | 13.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.9% | 4.1% |
Technicals
ABEV has the stronger structure| Metric | ABEV | BG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.9 | 33.6 |
| ADX (14) | 28.4 | 32.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -12.1% | -13.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -6.1% | -13.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 65.5% | 27.7% |
Risk
BG is the more resilient| Metric | ABEV | BG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | -0.13 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.71 | 0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.98 | 0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -23.3% |
| Current drawdown | -18.9% | -23.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.8% | 29.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABEV or BG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ABEV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 46 against BG's 40. The edge comes from quality. BG 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 ABEV or BG the better buy right now?
ABEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor ABEV over BG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABEV leads Quality by 47 points; BG leads Risk Resilience by 18 points; BG leads Value by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABEV or BG?
Analyst price targets imply +15.8% upside for ABEV and +44.9% for BG, so the Street currently favors BG. 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 BG?
BG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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 BG?
BG 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 BG?
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, ABEV or BG?
BG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BG on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 BG?
ABEV leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.1% vs 4.9%; operating margin 25.6% vs 2.3%; ttm roe 18.1% vs 6.3%.
Is ABEV's lead over BG getting stronger or weaker?
ABEV lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 20 to 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when ABEV moved ahead of BG.
What would change the ABEV vs BG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BG closes the Quality gap — currently 47 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge; BG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; ABEV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 14 points over 30 sessions, and a further 6-point move would eliminate ABEV's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ABEV and BG?
ABEV: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. BG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 BG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ABEV and BG 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.