AZO vs CELH Stock Comparison
Compare AZO and CELH across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AZO and CELH?
CELH leads the current stock comparison as Celsius Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
AutoZone, Inc. vs Celsius Holdings, Inc.
CELH leads
CELH leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from AZO.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CELH, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
AutoZone, Inc.
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CELH over AZO, 40 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. CELH's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. CELH also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CELH today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CELH lead: Reversed — AZO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CELH now leads by 2.
Compare AutoZone, Inc. and Celsius Holdings, 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 AZO and CELH 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.
- Momentum17 vs 23CELH +6
- Risk Resilience44 vs 50CELH +6
- Value37 vs 35Even
- Quality53 vs 53Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CELH. CELH’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CELH's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AZO and CELH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CELH (Celsius Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
AZO (AutoZone, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals.
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
CELHCELH on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AZOAZO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CELHCELH on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CELHCELH on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CELHCELH 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 | AZO | CELH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +29% | +67.8% | CELH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | +83.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 12 | 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 CELH. 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 | 38 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | AZOon balance | revenue growth 13.3% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 37.7% vs -57.6%; TTM ROE -80.4% vs 4.4%; gross margin 51.8% vs 48.8%; operating margin 18% vs 7.9% — AZO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 37 vs 35 |
| Technicals | AZO | Price vs 50-day -4.8% vs -9.6%; vs 200-day -14.4% vs -29.1% |
| Risk Resilience | CELH | Risk Resilience 44 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | CELH | Target upside 29% vs 67.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AZO and CELH 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 2 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 CELH.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CELH lead: Reversed — AZO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CELH now leads by 2.
- Today
- CELH +2
- 38 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- CELH +6
- 42 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- AZO +2
- 53 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- CELH +5
- 47 vs 52
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when CELH moved ahead of AZO.
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.
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.45%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.76%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CELH 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.16%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.22%, 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.
- 1AZO closes the Momentum gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to CELH's edge.
- 2AZO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CELH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
AZO leads on balance| Metric | AZO | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13.3% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 37.7% | -57.6% |
| Gross margin | 51.8% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 18% | 7.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -80.4% | 4.4% |
| Debt to equity | -4.54 | 0.23 |
Performance
AZO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AZO | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -14.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.4% | -3.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.3% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -22.4% | -41.8% |
| Year to date | -13.5% | -40.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.5% | -52.1% |
Technicals
AZO has the stronger structure| Metric | AZO | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.7 | 27.8 |
| ADX (14) | 11.1 | 16.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.8% | -9.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.4% | -29.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.5% | 60% |
Risk
CELH is the more resilient| Metric | AZO | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 1.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.35 | -0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.77 | -1.19 |
| Max drawdown | -33.8% | -63.4% |
| Current drawdown | -33.8% | -58.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.2% | 62.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3% | -5.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AZO or CELH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CELH is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against AZO's 38. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 AZO or CELH the better buy right now?
CELH carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CELH over AZO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CELH leads Momentum by 6 points; CELH leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AZO or CELH?
Analyst price targets imply +29% upside for AZO and +67.8% for CELH, so the Street currently favors CELH. 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, AZO or CELH?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, AZO or CELH?
AZO 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, AZO or CELH?
CELH on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, AZO or CELH?
CELH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CELH on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 AZO more profitable than CELH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 51.8% vs 48.8%; operating margin 18% vs 7.9%; ttm roe -80.4% vs 4.4%. AZO leads on two measures and CELH 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 CELH's lead over AZO getting stronger or weaker?
CELH lead: Reversed — AZO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CELH now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when CELH moved ahead of AZO.
What would change the AZO vs CELH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AZO closes the Momentum gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to CELH's edge; AZO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CELH's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 AZO and CELH?
AZO: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. CELH: 1 bullish / 4 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 AZO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CELH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AZO and CELH 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.