ABEV vs UL Stock Comparison
Compare ABEV and UL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ABEV and UL?
ABEV leads the current stock comparison as Ambev S.A., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ambev S.A. vs Unilever PLC
ABEV leads
ABEV leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors UL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ABEV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ambev S.A.
Unilever PLC
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ABEV over UL, 62 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. ABEV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. ABEV also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UL. 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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Ambev S.A. and Unilever PLC 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 UL 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.
- Momentum78 vs 30ABEV +48
- Value43 vs 35ABEV +8
- Quality70 vs 66ABEV +4
- Risk Resilience56 vs 53Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ABEV. ABEV’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
ABEV's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABEV and UL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ABEV (Ambev S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
UL (Unilever PLC): the counter-case, on fundamentals, 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
ABEVABEV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ULUL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ABEVABEV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
ABEVABEV on the Momentum factor, by 48 points.
Lower downside
ULUL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
ULUL 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 UL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ABEV | UL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -1.3% | +14.5% | UL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.5% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 1 | 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 46 |
| Fundamentals | UL | revenue growth -10.3% vs 29.2%; EPS growth -8.3% vs 21.4%; TTM ROE 18.1% vs 35.4%; gross margin 50.1% vs 99%; operating margin 25.6% vs 27.1% |
| Valuation | ABEV | Value 43 vs 35 |
| Technicals | ABEV | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -1.5%; vs 200-day 3.9% vs -2.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 56 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | UL | Target upside -1.3% vs 14.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABEV and UL 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 wide at 16 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10ABEV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ABEV +16
- 62 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- ABEV +4
- 62 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 49 vs 49
- 90 sessions ago
- UL +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when ABEV moved ahead of UL.
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
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.03%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.63%, 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.
- 1UL closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge.
- 2UL'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
UL leads on balance| Metric | ABEV | UL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -10.3% | 29.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -8.3% | 21.4% |
| Gross margin | 50.1% | 99% |
| Operating margin | 25.6% | 27.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 18.1% | 35.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.03 | 1.98 |
Performance
ABEV leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ABEV | UL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.8% | -0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | 5.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.7% | -5.4% |
| Year to date | 23.1% | -5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.2% | -14.4% |
Technicals
ABEV has the stronger structure| Metric | ABEV | UL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 73.3 | 37.9 |
| ADX (14) | 18.7 | 15.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.9% | -2.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 19% | 17.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | ABEV | UL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.51 | 0.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.03 | -0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.74 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -18.9% | -26.2% |
| Current drawdown | -11.4% | -17.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.6% | 24.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABEV or UL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ABEV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against UL's 46. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 UL the better buy right now?
ABEV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 UL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABEV leads Momentum by 48 points; ABEV leads Value by 8 points; ABEV leads Quality by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABEV or UL?
Analyst price targets imply -1.3% upside for ABEV and +14.5% for UL, so the Street currently favors UL. 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 UL?
ABEV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ABEV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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 UL?
UL 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 UL?
ABEV on the Momentum factor, by 48 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 UL?
UL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 UL?
UL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 50.1% vs 99%; operating margin 25.6% vs 27.1%; ttm roe 18.1% vs 35.4%.
Is ABEV's lead over UL getting stronger or weaker?
ABEV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when ABEV moved ahead of UL.
What would change the ABEV vs UL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UL closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to ABEV's edge; UL'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 UL?
ABEV: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. UL: 0 bullish / 4 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 ABEV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ABEV and UL 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.