CAVA vs CMG Stock Comparison
Compare CAVA vs CMG on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between CAVA and CMG?
CAVA and CMG are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CAVA Group, Inc. vs Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
CAVA and CMG are effectively level
CAVA and CMG are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
CAVA Group, Inc.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate CAVA and CMG as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare CAVA Group, Inc. and Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare CAVA 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.
- Momentum42 vs 25CAVA +17
- Quality38 vs 51CMG +13
- Value24 vs 25Even
- Risk Resilience40 vs 40Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CMG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAVA and CMG both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
CMGCMG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CAVACAVA on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
CMGCMG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CAVACAVA 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 | CAVA | CMG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +51.7% | +30.1% | CAVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +52.7% | +33.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 35 vs 35 |
| Fundamentals | CMG | revenue growth -15.9% vs 8.4%; TTM ROE 8.3% vs 53.3%; gross margin 20.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 6.8% vs 15.2% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 24 vs 25 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.8% vs -4%; vs 200-day -24.3% vs -15.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 40 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | CAVA | Target upside 51.7% vs 30.1% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CAVA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 35 vs 35
- 7 sessions ago
- CAVA +1
- 36 vs 35
- 30 sessions ago
- CAVA +1
- 37 vs 36
- 90 sessions ago
- CMG +10
- 40 vs 50
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Oct 26 when CMG moved ahead of CAVA.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CAVA
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CMG
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.8%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active.
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 -0.79%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.95%, AIQ -1 points).
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
CMG leads on balance| Metric | CAVA | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -15.9% | 8.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 39.1% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 24.1% |
| Operating margin | 6.8% | 15.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.3% | 53.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | 2.46 |
Performance
CAVA leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CAVA | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | 2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.3% | -10.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.3% | -25.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -40.5% | -12.9% |
| Year to date | -7.6% | -22.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -14.7% | -30.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CAVA | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 49.8 | 24.5 |
| ADX (14) | 14.7 | 15.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.8% | -4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.3% | -15.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47% | 43% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CAVA | CMG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.38 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.01 | -0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.01 | -0.83 |
| Max drawdown | -48.9% | -32.7% |
| Current drawdown | -44.3% | -29.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 60.9% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, CAVA or CMG?
Analyst price targets imply +51.7% upside for CAVA and +30.1% for CMG, so the Street currently favors CAVA. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CAVA 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, CAVA or CMG?
CMG 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, CAVA or CMG?
CAVA on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, CAVA or CMG?
CMG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMG carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CAVA more profitable than CMG?
CMG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 20.2% vs 24.1%; operating margin 6.8% vs 15.2%; ttm roe 8.3% vs 53.3%.
What do the current signals say about CAVA and CMG?
CAVA: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. CMG: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 CAVA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CMG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CAVA 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.