BABA vs YUMC Stock Comparison
Alibaba Group Holding Limited vs Yum China Holdings, Inc.
YUMC leads
YUMC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value. Wall Street currently favors BABA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support YUMC.
Alibaba Group Holding Limited
Yum China Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors YUMC over BABA, 43 versus 37 as of Sep 5, 2026. YUMC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while BABA holds the stronger risk resilience profile. YUMC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BABA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YUMC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability. YUMC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Alibaba Group Holding Limited and Yum China Holdings, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare BABA and YUMC 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.
- Value30%32 vs 51YUMC +19
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 44BABA +4
- Momentum25%22 vs 24Even
- Quality30%50 vs 49Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor YUMC. YUMC’s edge is concentrated in value; BABA keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
YUMC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BABA and YUMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
YUMC (Yum China Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
BABA (Alibaba Group Holding Limited): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 43.8% against 26.9%.
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
YUMCYUMC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
YUMCYUMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
YUMCYUMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
BABABABA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
BABABABA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors YUMC, analyst targets favor BABA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BABA | YUMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +62.1% | +35.3% | BABA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor YUMC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | YUMC | 37 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | YUMCon balance | revenue growth 10.2% vs -4.1%; EPS growth -59.1% vs -20.5%; TTM ROE 7% vs 17.8%; gross margin 38.1% vs 17.2%; operating margin 4.2% vs 12.2% — YUMC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | YUMC | Value 32 vs 51 |
| Technicals | YUMC | Price vs 50-day -2.5% vs -3.5%; vs 200-day -16.4% vs -8.8% |
| Risk Resilience | BABA | Risk Resilience 48 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | BABA | Target upside 62.1% vs 35.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BABA and YUMC 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 moderate at 6 points.
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 YUMC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4YUMC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- YUMC +6
- 37 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- YUMC +6
- 41 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- YUMC +7
- 49 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- YUMC +6
- 38 vs 44
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Jul 22 when YUMC moved ahead of BABA.
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 (16.60%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.90%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 +1.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.21%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1BABA closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to YUMC's edge.
- 2BABA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3YUMC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
YUMC leads on balance| Metric | BABA | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.2% | -4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -59.1% | -20.5% |
| Gross margin | 38.1% | 17.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 12.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7% | 17.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.25 | 0.43 |
Performance
YUMC leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BABA | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.8% | -8.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.5% | 1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.4% | -15.9% |
| Year to date | -22.7% | -8.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17% | -1.8% |
Technicals
YUMC has the stronger structure| Metric | BABA | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.1 | 31.6 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.5% | -3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -16.4% | -8.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43.8% | 26.9% |
Risk
BABA is the more resilient| Metric | BABA | YUMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.26 | 0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.21 | -0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.37 | -0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -49.9% | -30.7% |
| Current drawdown | -40.2% | -24.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.9% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BABA or YUMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, YUMC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 43 against BABA's 37. The edge comes from value. BABA 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 BABA or YUMC the better buy right now?
YUMC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 YUMC over BABA?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. YUMC leads Value by 19 points; BABA leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BABA or YUMC?
Analyst price targets imply +62.1% upside for BABA and +35.3% for YUMC, so the Street currently favors BABA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors YUMC. 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, BABA or YUMC?
YUMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. YUMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, BABA or YUMC?
YUMC 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, BABA or YUMC?
The two are level on Momentum. Momentum carries 25% of 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, BABA or YUMC?
BABA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BABA on Risk Resilience, by 4 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is BABA more profitable than YUMC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 38.1% vs 17.2%; operating margin 4.2% vs 12.2%; ttm roe 7% vs 17.8%. BABA leads on one measure and YUMC on two measures, 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 YUMC's lead over BABA getting stronger or weaker?
YUMC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-22, when YUMC moved ahead of BABA.
What would change the BABA vs YUMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BABA closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to YUMC's edge; BABA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; YUMC starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about BABA and YUMC?
BABA: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. YUMC: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on BABA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On YUMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BABA and YUMC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.