BBY vs CELH Stock Comparison
BBY currently leads CELH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 53. The clearest difference is value, while CELH has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BBY and CELH?
BBY leads the current stock comparison as Best Buy Co., Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Best Buy Co., Inc. vs Celsius Holdings, Inc.
BBY leads
BBY leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CELH on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BBY, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Best Buy Co., Inc.
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BBY over CELH, 64 versus 53 as of Oct 21, 2026. BBY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CELH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BBY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CELH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BBY today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BBY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Best Buy Co., Inc. and Celsius 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 BBY 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.
- Value66 vs 35BBY +31
- Risk Resilience50 vs 59CELH +9
- Quality61 vs 53BBY +8
- Momentum74 vs 70BBY +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BBY. BBY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CELH keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
BBY's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BBY and CELH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BBY (Best Buy Co., Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CELH (Celsius Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, 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
BBYBBY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BBYBBY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BBYBBY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 points.
Momentum
BBYBBY on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
CELHCELH on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
CELHCELH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BBY, analyst targets favor CELH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BBY | CELH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -8.8% | +56.8% | CELH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.6% | +69.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 13 | 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 BBY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BBY | 64 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | BBYon balance | revenue growth 9.4% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 13.7% vs -57.6%; TTM ROE 42.8% vs 4.4%; gross margin 22.7% vs 48.8%; operating margin 4.4% vs 7.9% — BBY takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BBY | Value 66 vs 35 |
| Technicals | BBY | Price vs 50-day 6.5% vs -3.6%; vs 200-day 26.7% vs -15.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CELH | Risk Resilience 50 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CELH | Target upside -8.8% vs 56.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BBY and CELH 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 11 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 BBY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20BBY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BBY +11
- 64 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- BBY +17
- 63 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- BBY +16
- 61 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- BBY +10
- 59 vs 49
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
5 bullish / 0 bearish
Only BBY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (19.32%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.6%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 3 neutral, conflicted
Only CELH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (20.72%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
CELH is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +0.24%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -5.51%, 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.
- 1CELH closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBY's edge.
- 2CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BBY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate BBY'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
BBY leads on balance| Metric | BBY | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.7% | -57.6% |
| Gross margin | 22.7% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 7.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 42.8% | 4.4% |
| Debt to equity | 1.3 | 0.23 |
Performance
BBY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BBY | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 6.7% | 7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1% | 2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.8% | 5.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 41% | -8.4% |
| Year to date | 40.3% | -34.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.5% | -53.4% |
Technicals
BBY has the stronger structure| Metric | BBY | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 66.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.5 | 14.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.5% | -3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 26.7% | -15.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.9% | 37.2% |
Risk
CELH is the more resilient| Metric | BBY | CELH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.53 | 1.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.52 | -1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.98 | -1.28 |
| Max drawdown | -33.9% | -63.4% |
| Current drawdown | -1% | -53.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 37.6% | 61.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -5.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BBY or CELH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BBY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against CELH's 53. The edge comes from value and quality. CELH 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 BBY or CELH the better buy right now?
BBY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 BBY over CELH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BBY leads Value by 31 points; CELH leads Risk Resilience by 9 points; BBY leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BBY or CELH?
Analyst price targets imply -8.8% upside for BBY and +56.8% for CELH, so the Street currently favors CELH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BBY. 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, BBY or CELH?
BBY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BBY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, BBY or CELH?
BBY 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, BBY or CELH?
BBY on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, BBY or CELH?
CELH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CELH 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 BBY more profitable than CELH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 22.7% vs 48.8%; operating margin 4.4% vs 7.9%; ttm roe 42.8% vs 4.4%. BBY leads on one measure and CELH 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 BBY's lead over CELH getting stronger or weaker?
BBY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the BBY vs CELH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CELH closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BBY's edge; CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BBY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate BBY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BBY and CELH?
BBY: 5 bullish / 0 bearish. CELH: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 3 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 BBY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CELH it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BBY 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.