AVY vs CCK Stock Comparison
AVY currently leads CCK in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is quality, while CCK has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between AVY and CCK?
AVY leads the current stock comparison as Avery Dennison Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Avery Dennison Corporation vs Crown Holdings, Inc.
AVY leads
AVY leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support AVY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Avery Dennison Corporation
Crown Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AVY over CCK, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. AVY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CCK holds the stronger value profile. AVY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. AVY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Avery Dennison Corporation and Crown Holdings, 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 AVY and CCK 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.
- Quality50 vs 34AVY +16
- Value48 vs 58CCK +10
- Risk Resilience62 vs 53AVY +9
- Momentum82 vs 82Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor AVY. AVY’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CCK keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
AVY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AVY and CCK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AVY (Avery Dennison Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CCK (Crown Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
AVYAVY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCKCCK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCKCCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AVYAVY on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
AVYAVY 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 | AVY | CCK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +13.5% | +8% | AVY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.6% | +7.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AVY. 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 | 59 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | CCKon balance | revenue growth 7.2% vs 12.5%; EPS growth 22.5% vs 43.6%; TTM ROE 31.1% vs 26.5%; gross margin 29% vs 17.5%; operating margin 12.4% vs 13.8% — CCK takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCK | Value 48 vs 58 |
| Technicals | CCK | Price vs 50-day 3% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day 3.5% vs 5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | AVY | Risk Resilience 62 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | AVY | Target upside 13.5% vs 8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AVY and CCK 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)
- Only 2 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 AVY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20AVY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AVY +3
- 59 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- AVY +2
- 58 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- AVY +8
- 50 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- AVY +9
- 56 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when AVY moved ahead of CCK.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only AVY
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 5 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
AVY 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 up over the latest session (price +0.52%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.8%, 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.
- 1CCK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVY's edge.
- 2CCK's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3AVY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate AVY'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
CCK leads on balance| Metric | AVY | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.2% | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 22.5% | 43.6% |
| Gross margin | 29% | 17.5% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 13.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 31.1% | 26.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.58 | 2.19 |
Performance
CCK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AVY | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.3% | 3.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.5% | 4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13% | -1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.1% | 10.4% |
| Year to date | -2.1% | 10.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 11.7% | 23.6% |
Technicals
CCK has the stronger structure| Metric | AVY | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 84 |
| ADX (14) | 16.4 | 25.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.5% | 5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 21.3% |
Risk
AVY is the more resilient| Metric | AVY | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.45 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.41 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.85 | 1.33 |
| Max drawdown | -22.5% | -20.7% |
| Current drawdown | -9.8% | -6.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.6% | 25.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AVY or CCK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AVY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against CCK's 56. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CCK 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 AVY or CCK the better buy right now?
AVY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AVY over CCK?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AVY leads Quality by 16 points; CCK leads Value by 10 points; AVY leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AVY or CCK?
Analyst price targets imply +13.5% upside for AVY and +8% for CCK, so the Street currently favors AVY. 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, AVY or CCK?
CCK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, AVY or CCK?
CCK 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, AVY or CCK?
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, AVY or CCK?
AVY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AVY on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 AVY more profitable than CCK?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 29% vs 17.5%; operating margin 12.4% vs 13.8%; ttm roe 31.1% vs 26.5%. AVY leads on two measures and CCK 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 AVY's lead over CCK getting stronger or weaker?
AVY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-15, when AVY moved ahead of CCK.
What would change the AVY vs CCK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCK closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to AVY's edge; CCK's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; AVY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate AVY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AVY and CCK?
AVY: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. CCK: 4 bullish / 1 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 AVY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CCK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AVY and CCK 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.