CCEP vs COST Stock Comparison
Compare CCEP and COST across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CCEP and COST?
CCEP leads the current stock comparison as Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC vs Costco Wholesale Corporation
CCEP leads
CCEP leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from COST. Wall Street currently favors COST on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CCEP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC
Costco Wholesale Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCEP over COST, 43 versus 42 as of Sep 11, 2026. CCEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while COST holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CCEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors COST. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CCEP lead: Reversed — COST led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCEP now leads by 1.
Compare Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC and Costco Wholesale Corporation 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 COST 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.
- Momentum37 vs 15CCEP +22
- Risk Resilience52 vs 69COST +17
- Quality49 vs 60COST +11
- Value37 vs 32CCEP +5
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CCEP. CCEP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; COST keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 -3
New signals
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No new signals fired.
CCEP's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCEP and COST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCEP (Coca-Cola Europacific Partners PLC): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
COST (Costco Wholesale Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, quality, 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
COSTCOST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCEPCCEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 points.
Momentum
CCEPCCEP on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
COSTCOST on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
COSTCOST 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 COST. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCEP | COST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7% | +22.8% | COST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +11.8% | +24.8% | 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
2 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 | Even | 43 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 0.9% vs 1.3%; EPS growth -4.4% vs 7.9%; TTM ROE 24.8% vs 28.3%; gross margin 35.6% vs 12.9%; operating margin 13.5% vs 3.8% |
| Valuation | CCEP | Value 37 vs 32 |
| Technicals | CCEP | Price vs 50-day -4% vs -3.9%; vs 200-day 5.1% vs -5.9% |
| Risk Resilience | COST | Risk Resilience 52 vs 69 |
| Analyst expectations | COST | Target upside 7% vs 22.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCEP and COST 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 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: Reversed — COST led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCEP now leads by 1.
- Today
- CCEP +1
- 43 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- CCEP +4
- 46 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- COST +8
- 46 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CCEP +8
- 54 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when CCEP moved ahead of COST.
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
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.05%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.26%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1COST closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge.
- 2COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
Split| Metric | CCEP | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.9% | 1.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -4.4% | 7.9% |
| Gross margin | 35.6% | 12.9% |
| Operating margin | 13.5% | 3.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 24.8% | 28.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.47 | 0.25 |
Performance
CCEP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCEP | COST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.9% | -5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.5% | -8.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.7% | -9.1% |
| Year to date | 13.4% | 4.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.2% | -7.1% |
Technicals
CCEP has the stronger structure| Metric | CCEP | COST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.4 | 37.9 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 14.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4% | -3.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.1% | -5.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.5% | 19.4% |
Risk
COST is the more resilient| Metric | CCEP | COST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.13 | -0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.46 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.72 | -0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -19.1% | -17.5% |
| Current drawdown | -7.9% | -17.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.9% | 20% |
| 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 COST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 43 against COST's 42. The edge comes from momentum and value. COST 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 CCEP or COST the better buy right now?
CCEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 CCEP over COST?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCEP leads Momentum by 22 points; COST leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; COST leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCEP or COST?
Analyst price targets imply +7% upside for CCEP and +22.8% for COST, so the Street currently favors COST. 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 COST?
CCEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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 COST?
COST 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 COST?
CCEP on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, CCEP or COST?
COST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. COST on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 CCEP more profitable than COST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.6% vs 12.9%; operating margin 13.5% vs 3.8%; ttm roe 24.8% vs 28.3%. CCEP leads on two measures and COST 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 CCEP's lead over COST getting stronger or weaker?
CCEP lead: Reversed — COST led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCEP now leads by 1. 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 2026-08-27, when CCEP moved ahead of COST.
What would change the CCEP vs COST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: COST closes the Momentum gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCEP's edge; COST's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 COST?
CCEP: 2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. COST: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. 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 COST it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCEP and COST 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.