BROS vs CMG Stock Comparison
Compare BROS and CMG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BROS and CMG?
CMG leads the current stock comparison as Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Dutch Bros Inc. vs Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
CMG leads
CMG leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BROS on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CMG, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Dutch Bros Inc.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMG over BROS, 46 versus 27 as of Sep 11, 2026. CMG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality. CMG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BROS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CMG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Dutch Bros Inc. and Chipotle Mexican Grill, 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 BROS and CMG 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.
- Momentum26 vs 65CMG +39
- Quality32 vs 51CMG +19
- Risk Resilience27 vs 46CMG +19
- Value24 vs 25Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CMG. CMG’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality.
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 -1
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
CMG's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BROS and CMG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMG (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
BROS (Dutch Bros Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 43% against 33.4%.
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
CMGCMG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BROSBROS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CMGCMG on the Momentum factor, by 39 points.
Lower downside
CMGCMG on Risk Resilience, by 19 points.
Analyst upside
BROSBROS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CMG, analyst targets favor BROS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BROS | CMG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +76.4% | +15.6% | BROS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.5% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 11 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CMG | 27 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | BROSon balance | revenue growth 18.6% vs 8.4%; EPS growth 115.4% vs 39.1%; TTM ROE 13% vs 53.3%; gross margin 25% vs 24.1%; operating margin 9.7% vs 15.2% — BROS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 25 |
| Technicals | CMG | Price vs 50-day -24% vs 3.3%; vs 200-day -21.2% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | CMG | Risk Resilience 27 vs 46 |
| Analyst expectations | BROS | Target upside 76.4% vs 15.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BROS and CMG 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 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 CMG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CMG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CMG +19
- 27 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- CMG +20
- 29 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- CMG +16
- 26 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- CMG +11
- 35 vs 46
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jun 18 when CMG moved ahead of BROS.
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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.12%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
CMG 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.06%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.19%, 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.
- 1BROS closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMG's edge.
- 2BROS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3CMG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
BROS leads on balance| Metric | BROS | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 115.4% | 39.1% |
| Gross margin | 25% | 24.1% |
| Operating margin | 9.7% | 15.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13% | 53.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.51 | 2.46 |
Performance
CMG leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BROS | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.7% | -6.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -14.9% | 10.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -26.6% | 18.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.8% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | -29% | -2.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -32.4% | -8.9% |
Technicals
CMG has the stronger structure| Metric | BROS | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.1 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 32.3 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -24% | 3.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.2% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 43% | 33.4% |
Risk
CMG is the more resilient| Metric | BROS | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.4 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.62 | -0.09 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.9 | -0.12 |
| Max drawdown | -40.7% | -33.5% |
| Current drawdown | -40.7% | -14.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 51.6% | 41.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BROS or CMG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against BROS's 27. The edge comes from momentum and quality. 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 BROS or CMG the better buy right now?
CMG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 CMG over BROS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMG leads Momentum by 39 points; CMG leads Quality by 19 points; CMG leads Risk Resilience by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BROS or CMG?
Analyst price targets imply +76.4% upside for BROS and +15.6% for CMG, so the Street currently favors BROS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CMG. 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, BROS or CMG?
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, BROS or CMG?
BROS 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, BROS or CMG?
CMG on the Momentum factor, by 39 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, BROS or CMG?
CMG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMG on Risk Resilience, by 19 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 BROS more profitable than CMG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25% vs 24.1%; operating margin 9.7% vs 15.2%; ttm roe 13% vs 53.3%. BROS leads on one measure and CMG 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 CMG's lead over BROS getting stronger or weaker?
CMG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-18, when CMG moved ahead of BROS.
What would change the BROS vs CMG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BROS closes the Momentum gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMG's edge; BROS's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; CMG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 BROS and CMG?
BROS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CMG: 3 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 BROS is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CMG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BROS and CMG 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.