CCK vs IP Stock Comparison
CCK currently leads IP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 49. The clearest difference is momentum, while IP has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CCK and IP?
CCK leads the current stock comparison as Crown Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Crown Holdings, Inc. vs International Paper Company
CCK leads
CCK leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from IP. Wall Street currently favors IP on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CCK, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Crown Holdings, Inc.
International Paper Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCK over IP, 56 versus 49 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while IP holds the stronger value profile. CCK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors IP. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CCK lead: Reversed — IP led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 7.
Compare Crown Holdings, Inc. and International Paper Company across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare CCK and IP 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.
- Momentum82 vs 47CCK +35
- Value58 vs 64IP +6
- Risk Resilience53 vs 56Even
- Quality34 vs 32Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CCK. CCK’s edge is concentrated in momentum; IP keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CCK's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCK and IP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCK (Crown Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
IP (International Paper Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 31.5% against 21.3%.
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
CCKCCK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCKCCK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
IPIP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
CCKCCK on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
CCKCCK carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
IPIP on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CCK, analyst targets favor IP. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCK | IP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8% | +38.7% | IP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.2% | +55.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 7 | 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 CCK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CCK | 56 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | CCKon balance | EPS growth 43.6% vs -118.2%; TTM ROE 26.5% vs -22.4%; gross margin 17.5% vs 27.7%; operating margin 13.8% vs -11.5% — CCK takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | IP | Value 58 vs 64 |
| Technicals | CCK | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs -6.6%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs -10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 53 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | IP | Target upside 8% vs 38.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCK and IP 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 7 points.
- Only 3 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 CCK.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CCK lead: Reversed — IP led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 7.
- Today
- CCK +7
- 56 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- CCK +10
- 56 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- IP +3
- 42 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 47 vs 47
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when IP moved ahead of CCK.
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only CCK
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.69%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only IP
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.49%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
CCK 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 +1.8%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.18%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1IP closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCK's edge.
- 2IP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CCK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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
CCK leads on balance| Metric | CCK | IP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.5% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 43.6% | -118.2% |
| Gross margin | 17.5% | 27.7% |
| Operating margin | 13.8% | -11.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.5% | -22.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.19 | 0.67 |
Performance
CCK leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CCK | IP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | 5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | -5.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.9% | -11.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.4% | -4.9% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | -14.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.6% | -27.8% |
Technicals
CCK has the stronger structure| Metric | CCK | IP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84 | 55.1 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 27.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | -6.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | -10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.3% | 31.5% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CCK | IP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 1.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | -0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | -0.85 |
| Max drawdown | -20.7% | -40.3% |
| Current drawdown | -6.5% | -31.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 44.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCK or IP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against IP's 49. The edge comes from momentum. IP 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 CCK or IP the better buy right now?
CCK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 CCK over IP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCK leads Momentum by 35 points; IP leads Value by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCK or IP?
Analyst price targets imply +8% upside for CCK and +38.7% for IP, so the Street currently favors IP. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CCK. 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, CCK or IP?
IP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. IP 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, CCK or IP?
CCK 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, CCK or IP?
CCK on the Momentum factor, by 35 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, CCK or IP?
CCK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CCK 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 CCK more profitable than IP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.5% vs 27.7%; operating margin 13.8% vs -11.5%; ttm roe 26.5% vs -22.4%. CCK leads on two measures and IP 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 CCK's lead over IP getting stronger or weaker?
CCK lead: Reversed — IP led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 7. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-21, when IP moved ahead of CCK.
What would change the CCK vs IP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: IP closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCK's edge; IP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CCK's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 1 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 CCK and IP?
CCK: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. IP: 1 bullish / 2 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 CCK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On IP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CCK and IP 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.