CAG vs CHD Stock Comparison
Compare CAG and CHD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CAG and CHD?
CHD leads the current stock comparison as Church & Dwight Co., Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Conagra Brands, Inc. vs Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
CHD leads
CHD leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from CAG.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CHD, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Conagra Brands, Inc.
Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHD over CAG, 42 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. CHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CAG holds the stronger value profile. CHD also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CHD lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHD now leads by 3.
Compare Conagra Brands, Inc. and Church & Dwight Co., 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 CAG and CHD 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.
- Value68 vs 28CAG +40
- Quality24 vs 60CHD +36
- Risk Resilience35 vs 55CHD +20
- Momentum24 vs 29CHD +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CHD. CHD’s edge is concentrated in quality 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 -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
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
No new signals fired.
CHD's lead widened by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAG and CHD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHD (Church & Dwight Co., Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CAG (Conagra Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 29.4% against 23.2%.
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
CHDCHD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CHDCHD on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CAGCAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 points.
Momentum
CHDCHD on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
CHDCHD on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
CHDCHD 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 | CAG | CHD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.9% | +15.6% | CHD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.2% | +16.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHD. 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 | 39 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | CHD | revenue growth 3.4% vs 4.1%; EPS growth -9% vs -5.5%; TTM ROE -24.3% vs 17.8%; gross margin 23.9% vs 45.6%; operating margin -14.4% vs 17.5% |
| Valuation | CAG | Value 68 vs 28 |
| Technicals | CHD | Price vs 50-day -3.2% vs -5%; vs 200-day -7.2% vs -0.9% |
| Risk Resilience | CHD | Risk Resilience 35 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | CHD | Target upside -2.9% vs 15.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CAG and CHD 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 3 points. (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 CHD.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHD lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHD now leads by 3.
- Today
- CHD +3
- 39 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- CAG +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- CHD +3
- 47 vs 50
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Aug 19 when CAG moved ahead of CHD.
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 / 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
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.21%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
CHD 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.68%, AIQ -4 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.22%, 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.
- 1CAG closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHD's edge.
- 2CAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CHD'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
CHD leads on balance| Metric | CAG | CHD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.4% | 4.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -9% | -5.5% |
| Gross margin | 23.9% | 45.6% |
| Operating margin | -14.4% | 17.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -24.3% | 17.8% |
| Debt to equity | 1.14 | 0.56 |
Performance
CHD leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CAG | CHD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.1% | -5.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.7% | -7.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 10.2% | -4.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.4% | -5.7% |
| Year to date | -15.1% | 12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.5% | -0.7% |
Technicals
CHD has the stronger structure| Metric | CAG | CHD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.3 | 37.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.2% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -7.2% | -0.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.4% | 23.2% |
Risk
CHD is the more resilient| Metric | CAG | CHD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.25 | -0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.89 | -0.1 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.5 | -0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -37.2% | -14% |
| Current drawdown | -26.6% | -10.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.5% | 23.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CAG or CHD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against CAG's 39. The edge comes from quality 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 CAG or CHD the better buy right now?
CHD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CHD over CAG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CAG leads Value by 40 points; CHD leads Quality by 36 points; CHD leads Risk Resilience by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CAG or CHD?
Analyst price targets imply -2.9% upside for CAG and +15.6% for CHD, so the Street currently favors CHD. 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, CAG or CHD?
CAG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CAG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 40 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, CAG or CHD?
CHD 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, CAG or CHD?
CHD on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, CAG or CHD?
CHD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHD on Risk Resilience, by 20 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 CAG more profitable than CHD?
CHD leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.9% vs 45.6%; operating margin -14.4% vs 17.5%; ttm roe -24.3% vs 17.8%.
Is CHD's lead over CAG getting stronger or weaker?
CHD lead: Reversed — CAG led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CHD now leads by 3. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-19, when CAG moved ahead of CHD.
What would change the CAG vs CHD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAG closes the Quality gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHD's edge; CAG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CHD'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 CAG and CHD?
CAG: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CHD: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 CAG is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CHD it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CAG and CHD 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.