BG vs CAG Stock Comparison
Compare BG and CAG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BG and CAG?
BG leads the current stock comparison as Bunge Global S.A., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bunge Global S.A. vs Conagra Brands, Inc.
BG leads
BG leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CAG.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support BG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bunge Global S.A.
Conagra Brands, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BG over CAG, 52 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. BG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while CAG holds the stronger value profile. BG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. BG lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BG now leads by 13.
Compare Bunge Global S.A. and Conagra Brands, 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 BG and CAG 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.
- Momentum75 vs 24BG +51
- Risk Resilience51 vs 35BG +16
- Value61 vs 68CAG +7
- Quality23 vs 24Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor BG. BG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; CAG keeps a meaningful value edge.
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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -14
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
BG's lead widened by 4 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BG and CAG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BG (Bunge Global S.A.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
CAG (Conagra Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, 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
BGBG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BGBG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CAGCAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
BGBG on the Momentum factor, by 51 points.
Lower downside
BGBG on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
BGBG 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 | BG | CAG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.5% | -2.9% | BG has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +28.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BG | 52 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | BGon balance | revenue growth 10% vs 3.4%; EPS growth 8.9% vs -9%; TTM ROE 6.3% vs -24.3%; gross margin 4.9% vs 23.9%; operating margin 2.3% vs -14.4% — BG takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CAG | Value 61 vs 68 |
| Technicals | BG | Price vs 50-day 6.9% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day 8.7% vs -7.2% |
| Risk Resilience | BG | Risk Resilience 51 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | BG | Target upside 22.5% vs -2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BG and CAG 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BG lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BG now leads by 13.
- Today
- BG +13
- 52 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- BG +3
- 50 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CAG +2
- 50 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- CAG +6
- 41 vs 47
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when CAG moved ahead of BG.
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, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.09%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (5.02%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
BG 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 -1.75%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.68%, AIQ -4 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.
- 1CAG closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to BG's edge.
- 2CAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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
BG leads on balance| Metric | BG | CAG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10% | 3.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 8.9% | -9% |
| Gross margin | 4.9% | 23.9% |
| Operating margin | 2.3% | -14.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.3% | -24.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 1.14 |
Performance
BG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | BG | CAG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.4% | -9.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.5% | -1.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | 10.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.5% | -13.4% |
| Year to date | 39.9% | -15.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 47.7% | -24.5% |
Technicals
BG has the stronger structure| Metric | BG | CAG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62 | 22.3 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 17 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.9% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.7% | -7.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.9% | 29.4% |
Risk
BG is the more resilient| Metric | BG | CAG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.06 | -0.25 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.27 | -0.89 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.26 | -1.5 |
| Max drawdown | -20.2% | -37.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -26.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.9% | 30.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BG or CAG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against CAG's 39. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. CAG 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 BG or CAG the better buy right now?
BG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 BG over CAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BG leads Momentum by 51 points; BG leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; CAG leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BG or CAG?
Analyst price targets imply +22.5% upside for BG and -2.9% for CAG, so the Street currently favors BG. 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, BG or CAG?
CAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, BG or CAG?
BG 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, BG or CAG?
BG on the Momentum factor, by 51 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, BG or CAG?
BG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BG on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 BG more profitable than CAG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 4.9% vs 23.9%; operating margin 2.3% vs -14.4%; ttm roe 6.3% vs -24.3%. BG leads on two measures and CAG 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 BG's lead over CAG getting stronger or weaker?
BG lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BG now leads by 13. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when CAG moved ahead of BG.
What would change the BG vs CAG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAG closes the Momentum gap — currently 51 points behind, the largest single contributor to BG's edge; CAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 1 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 BG and CAG?
BG: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CAG: 2 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 BG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CAG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BG and CAG 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.