CCEP vs CL Stock Comparison
Compare CCEP and CL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCEP and CL?
CCEP leads the current stock comparison as Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC vs Colgate-Palmolive Company
CCEP leads
CCEP leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value. Wall Street currently favors CL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CCEP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC
Colgate-Palmolive Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCEP over CL, 43 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. CCEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. CCEP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CCEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC and Colgate-Palmolive Company 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 CCEP and CL 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.
- Quality49 vs 34CCEP +15
- Value37 vs 31CCEP +6
- Momentum37 vs 40Even
- Risk Resilience52 vs 51Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CCEP. CCEP’s edge is concentrated in quality and value.
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 -3
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
CCEP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCEP and CL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCEP (Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company): the counter-case, on fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
CCEPCCEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCEPCCEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CLCL carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CLCL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CCEP, analyst targets favor CL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCEP | CL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7% | +12.8% | CL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.8% | +30.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 9 | 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 CCEP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CCEP | 43 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | CLon balance | revenue growth 0.9% vs 0.7%; EPS growth -4.4% vs 7.4%; TTM ROE 24.8% vs 6.3%; gross margin 35.6% vs 60.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 20.7% — CL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCEP | Value 37 vs 31 |
| Technicals | CCEP | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -5.2%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 52 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CL | Target upside 7% vs 12.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCEP and CL 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 moderate at 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 CCEP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CCEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CCEP +6
- 43 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- CCEP +8
- 46 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CCEP +8
- 46 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- CCEP +9
- 54 vs 45
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on May 28 when CL moved ahead of CCEP.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CCEP 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 -0.11%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.25%, 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.
- 1CL closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge.
- 2CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CCEP'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
CL leads on balance| Metric | CCEP | CL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 0.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.4% | 7.4% |
| Gross margin | 35.6% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 20.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.8% | 6.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 33.29 |
Performance
CCEP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCEP | CL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.9% | -4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.7% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | 13.4% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.2% | 4.4% |
Technicals
CCEP has the stronger structure| Metric | CCEP | CL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.5% | 16.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CCEP | CL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | -0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | 0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -19.1% | -17.5% |
| Current drawdown | -7.9% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.9% | 22.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCEP or CL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against CL's 37. The edge comes from quality 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 CCEP or CL the better buy right now?
CCEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CCEP over CL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCEP leads Quality by 15 points; CCEP leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCEP or CL?
Analyst price targets imply +7% upside for CCEP and +12.8% for CL, so the Street currently favors CL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CCEP. 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, CCEP or CL?
CCEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCEP 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, CCEP or CL?
CL 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, CCEP or CL?
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, CCEP or CL?
CL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CL 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 CCEP more profitable than CL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.6% vs 60.4%; operating margin 13.5% vs 20.7%; ttm roe 24.8% vs 6.3%. CCEP leads on one measure and CL 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 CCEP's lead over CL getting stronger or weaker?
CCEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2026-05-28, when CL moved ahead of CCEP.
What would change the CCEP vs CL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CL closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge; CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CCEP'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 CCEP and CL?
CCEP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CL: 1 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 CCEP is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCEP and CL 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.