BALL vs CCK Stock Comparison
Compare BALL and CCK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BALL and CCK?
BALL leads the current stock comparison as Ball Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Ball Corporation vs Crown Holdings, Inc.
BALL leads
BALL leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CCK.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support BALL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Ball Corporation
Crown Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BALL over CCK, 51 versus 47 as of Sep 6, 2026. BALL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CCK holds the stronger value profile. BALL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BALL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. BALL lead: Reversed — CCK led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BALL now leads by 4.
Compare Ball Corporation and Crown 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 BALL 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.
- Momentum25%57 vs 43BALL +14
- Risk Resilience15%67 vs 56BALL +11
- Value30%54 vs 58CCK +4
- Quality30%36 vs 34Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor BALL. BALL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CCK keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-05, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-04.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
BALL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BALL and CCK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BALL (Ball Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum 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
BALLBALL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CCKCCK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCKCCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
BALLBALL on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
BALLBALL on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
BALLBALL 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 | BALL | CCK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.7% | +9% | BALL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8% | +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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BALL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BALL | 51 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | CCK | revenue growth 10.9% vs 12.5%; EPS growth 6.5% vs 43.6%; TTM ROE 17% vs 26.5%; gross margin 16.4% vs 17.5%; operating margin 11.1% vs 13.8% |
| Valuation | CCK | Value 54 vs 58 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -0.4% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day 6% vs 8.4% |
| Risk Resilience | BALL | Risk Resilience 67 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | BALL | Target upside 19.7% vs 9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BALL 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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)
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 BALL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 24 – Sep 5BALL lead: Reversed — CCK led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BALL now leads by 4.
- Today
- BALL +4
- 51 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- BALL +4
- 53 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CCK +2
- 49 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 57 vs 57
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 8 when CCK moved ahead of BALL.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.45%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.63%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
BALL 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 -0.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.37%, 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 Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to BALL's edge.
- 2CCK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BALL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
CCK leads on balance| Metric | BALL | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.9% | 12.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 6.5% | 43.6% |
| Gross margin | 16.4% | 17.5% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 13.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17% | 26.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.26 | 2.19 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BALL | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.2% | -4.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 18.4% | 23.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 0.2% | 8.8% |
| Year to date | 18.3% | 11.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24% | 24.6% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BALL | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 45.8 |
| ADX (14) | 11.5 | 18.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.4% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | 8.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 14.9% | 17.3% |
Risk
BALL is the more resilient| Metric | BALL | CCK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.18 | 0.46 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.82 | 0.84 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.36 | 1.55 |
| Max drawdown | -22.3% | -20.7% |
| Current drawdown | -7.5% | -5.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.7% | 25.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BALL or CCK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BALL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 6, 2026, scoring 51 against CCK's 47. The edge comes from momentum 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 BALL or CCK the better buy right now?
BALL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 6, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BALL over CCK?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. BALL leads Momentum by 14 points; BALL leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; CCK leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BALL or CCK?
Analyst price targets imply +19.7% upside for BALL and +9% for CCK, so the Street currently favors BALL. 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, BALL or CCK?
CCK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, BALL 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, BALL or CCK?
BALL on the Momentum factor, by 14 points. 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, BALL or CCK?
BALL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BALL on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 BALL more profitable than CCK?
CCK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 16.4% vs 17.5%; operating margin 11.1% vs 13.8%; ttm roe 17% vs 26.5%.
Is BALL's lead over CCK getting stronger or weaker?
BALL lead: Reversed — CCK led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BALL now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-24 and 2026-09-05. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-08, when CCK moved ahead of BALL.
What would change the BALL vs CCK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CCK closes the Momentum gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to BALL's edge; CCK's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BALL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 BALL and CCK?
BALL: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CCK: 1 bullish / 1 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 BALL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CCK it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BALL and CCK 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.