BTI vs KVUE Stock Comparison
BTI currently leads KVUE in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 59. The clearest difference is value, while KVUE has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BTI and KVUE?
BTI leads the current stock comparison as British American Tobacco p.l.c., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
British American Tobacco p.l.c. vs Kenvue Inc.
BTI leads
BTI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from KVUE.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support BTI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
British American Tobacco p.l.c.
Kenvue Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BTI over KVUE, 60 versus 59 as of Oct 31, 2026. BTI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while KVUE holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BTI also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. BTI lead: Reversed — KVUE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTI now leads by 1.
Compare British American Tobacco p.l.c. and Kenvue 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 BTI and KVUE 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.
- Risk Resilience45 vs 52KVUE +7
- Value50 vs 44BTI +6
- Momentum80 vs 79Even
- Quality60 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor BTI. BTI’s edge is concentrated in value; KVUE keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
BTI's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BTI and KVUE both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BTI (British American Tobacco p.l.c.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
KVUE (Kenvue Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience.
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
BTIBTI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BTIBTI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BTIBTI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
KVUEKVUE on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
BTIBTI 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 | BTI | KVUE | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.7% | +1% | BTI has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +5.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BTI. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 60 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 0% vs 1.2%; TTM ROE 13.4% vs 15.6%; gross margin 60.2% vs 58.2%; operating margin 37.6% vs 19.5% |
| Valuation | BTI | Value 50 vs 44 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 9.3% vs 5%; vs 200-day 1.2% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | KVUE | Risk Resilience 45 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | BTI | Target upside 10.7% vs 1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BTI and KVUE 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 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 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 BTI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BTI lead: Reversed — KVUE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTI now leads by 1.
- Today
- BTI +1
- 60 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- BTI +1
- 60 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- KVUE +1
- 47 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- KVUE +3
- 52 vs 55
The lead changed hands 13 times in this window, most recently on Oct 22 when BTI moved ahead of KVUE.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only BTI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.98%)
5 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only KVUE
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.22%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
BTI 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 +0.74%, AIQ 0 points).
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).
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.
- 1KVUE closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTI's edge.
- 2KVUE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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
Split| Metric | BTI | KVUE |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 1.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -4% |
| Gross margin | 60.2% | 58.2% |
| Operating margin | 37.6% | 19.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.4% | 15.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.72 | 0.8 |
Performance
KVUE leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BTI | KVUE |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 1.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.9% | 9.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.1% | 0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 4.1% | 12.2% |
| Year to date | 5.6% | 12.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.8% | 28.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | BTI | KVUE |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 71.1 | 73.1 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 31.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 9.3% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.2% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.2% | 26.4% |
Risk
KVUE is the more resilient| Metric | BTI | KVUE |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | 0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.48 | 1.14 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.83 | 2.09 |
| Max drawdown | -21.1% | -13.3% |
| Current drawdown | -10.3% | -2.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.9% | 24.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BTI or KVUE?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BTI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against KVUE's 59. The edge comes from value. KVUE 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 BTI or KVUE the better buy right now?
BTI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor BTI over KVUE?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KVUE leads Risk Resilience by 7 points; BTI leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BTI or KVUE?
Analyst price targets imply +10.7% upside for BTI and +1% for KVUE, so the Street currently favors BTI. 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, BTI or KVUE?
BTI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BTI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, BTI or KVUE?
BTI 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, BTI or KVUE?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, BTI or KVUE?
KVUE is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KVUE on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 BTI more profitable than KVUE?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.2% vs 58.2%; operating margin 37.6% vs 19.5%; ttm roe 13.4% vs 15.6%. BTI leads on two measures and KVUE 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 BTI's lead over KVUE getting stronger or weaker?
BTI lead: Reversed — KVUE led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; BTI now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 13 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-22, when BTI moved ahead of KVUE.
What would change the BTI vs KVUE verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KVUE closes the Value gap — currently 6 points behind, the largest single contributor to BTI's edge; KVUE's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BTI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 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 BTI and KVUE?
BTI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. KVUE: 5 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 BTI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KVUE it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BTI and KVUE 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.