CAVA vs DPZ Stock Comparison
Compare CAVA and DPZ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CAVA and DPZ?
DPZ leads the current stock comparison as Domino's Pizza, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CAVA Group, Inc. vs Domino's Pizza, Inc.
DPZ leads
DPZ leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 1 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CAVA on target upside.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support DPZ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CAVA Group, Inc.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DPZ over CAVA, 40 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. DPZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value. DPZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CAVA. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DPZ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. DPZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CAVA Group, Inc. and Domino's Pizza, 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 CAVA and DPZ 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 Resilience38 vs 54DPZ +16
- Value24 vs 38DPZ +14
- Quality38 vs 48DPZ +10
- Momentum21 vs 23Even
5 of 6 evidence groups favor DPZ. DPZ’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DPZ's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAVA and DPZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DPZ (Domino's Pizza, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CAVA (CAVA Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 51.6% against 35.5%.
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
DPZDPZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DPZDPZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DPZDPZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DPZDPZ on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
CAVACAVA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DPZ, analyst targets favor CAVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CAVA | DPZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +63.6% | +23.8% | CAVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +39.4% | +42.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 17 | 14 | 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DPZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DPZ | 30 vs 40 |
| Fundamentals | DPZon balance | revenue growth -15.9% vs 3.8%; EPS growth 0% vs -2.2%; TTM ROE 8.3% vs -15.1%; gross margin 20.2% vs 40%; operating margin 6.8% vs 19.5% — DPZ takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DPZ | Value 24 vs 38 |
| Technicals | DPZ | Price vs 50-day -16.2% vs -7.1%; vs 200-day -21.2% vs -12.7% |
| Risk Resilience | DPZ | Risk Resilience 38 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | CAVA | Target upside 63.6% vs 23.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CAVA and DPZ 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 moderate at 10 points.
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 DPZ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DPZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DPZ +10
- 30 vs 40
- 7 sessions ago
- DPZ +18
- 30 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- DPZ +1
- 42 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- DPZ +13
- 33 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when DPZ 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.
2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.27%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.38%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DPZ 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 +3.48%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.8%, 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.
- 1CAVA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to DPZ's edge.
- 2CAVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DPZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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
DPZ leads on balance| Metric | CAVA | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -15.9% | 3.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -2.2% |
| Gross margin | 20.2% | 40% |
| Operating margin | 6.8% | 19.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.3% | -15.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.62 | -1.29 |
Performance
DPZ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CAVA | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -12.6% | -8.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -22.3% | -10.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -33.8% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -32.4% | -19.3% |
| Year to date | -8% | -23.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.4% | -31.9% |
Technicals
DPZ has the stronger structure| Metric | CAVA | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 13.7 | 41.2 |
| ADX (14) | 19.6 | 16.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -16.2% | -7.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -21.2% | -12.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.6% | 35.5% |
Risk
DPZ is the more resilient| Metric | CAVA | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.4 | 0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | -1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.17 | -1.9 |
| Max drawdown | -44.5% | -38.3% |
| Current drawdown | -44.5% | -30.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 60% | 30.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CAVA or DPZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DPZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 40 against CAVA's 30. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. 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 CAVA or DPZ the better buy right now?
DPZ 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 DPZ over CAVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DPZ leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; DPZ leads Value by 14 points; DPZ leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CAVA or DPZ?
Analyst price targets imply +63.6% upside for CAVA and +23.8% for DPZ, so the Street currently favors CAVA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DPZ. 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, CAVA or DPZ?
DPZ is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DPZ on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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, CAVA or DPZ?
DPZ 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 DPZ?
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, CAVA or DPZ?
DPZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DPZ 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 CAVA more profitable than DPZ?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 20.2% vs 40%; operating margin 6.8% vs 19.5%; ttm roe 8.3% vs -15.1%. CAVA leads on one measure and DPZ 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 DPZ's lead over CAVA getting stronger or weaker?
DPZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 1 to 10 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when DPZ moved ahead of CAVA.
What would change the CAVA vs DPZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAVA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to DPZ's edge; CAVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DPZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 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 CAVA and DPZ?
CAVA: 2 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DPZ: 1 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 CAVA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DPZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CAVA and DPZ 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.