CCK vs PKG Stock Comparison
CCK currently leads PKG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while PKG has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CCK and PKG?
CCK leads the current stock comparison as Crown Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Crown Holdings, Inc. vs Packaging Corporation of America
CCK leads
CCK leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from PKG. Wall Street currently favors PKG 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.
Packaging Corporation of America
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CCK over PKG, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. CCK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while PKG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CCK also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PKG. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CCK today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CCK lead: Reversed — PKG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 2.
Compare Crown Holdings, Inc. and Packaging Corporation of America 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 PKG 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.
- Value58 vs 34CCK +24
- Risk Resilience53 vs 74PKG +21
- Quality34 vs 40PKG +6
- Momentum82 vs 82Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CCK. CCK’s edge is concentrated in value; PKG keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +26
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
CCK's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CCK and PKG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CCK (Crown Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
PKG (Packaging Corporation of America): 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
CCKCCK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CCKCCK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CCKCCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PKGPKG on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
PKGPKG 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 PKG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CCK | PKG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8% | +10.9% | PKG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +7.2% | +30.2% | 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 | Even | 56 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | CCKon balance | revenue growth 12.5% vs 5.2%; EPS growth 43.6% vs 12.5%; TTM ROE 26.5% vs 14.9%; gross margin 17.5% vs 20.1%; operating margin 13.8% vs 12.7% — CCK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CCK | Value 58 vs 34 |
| Technicals | CCK | Price vs 50-day 2.9% vs 0.4%; vs 200-day 5.8% vs 4.8% |
| Risk Resilience | PKG | Risk Resilience 53 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | PKG | Target upside 8% vs 10.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CCK and PKG 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 — PKG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 2.
- Today
- CCK +2
- 56 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- CCK +12
- 56 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- PKG +5
- 42 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- CCK +1
- 47 vs 46
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when CCK moved ahead of PKG.
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
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Uptrend Structure Active, 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 +0.03%, AIQ +7 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.
- 1PKG closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCK's edge.
- 2PKG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
- 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 | PKG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.5% | 5.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 43.6% | 12.5% |
| Gross margin | 17.5% | 20.1% |
| Operating margin | 13.8% | 12.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 26.5% | 14.9% |
| Debt to equity | 2.19 | 0.94 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CCK | PKG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | 0.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.9% | 4.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.4% | 13.5% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | 15.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 23.6% | 16.4% |
Technicals
CCK has the stronger structure| Metric | CCK | PKG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 84 | 68.8 |
| ADX (14) | 25.9 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.9% | 0.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.8% | 4.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 21.3% | 16.2% |
Risk
PKG is the more resilient| Metric | CCK | PKG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.74 | 0.58 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.33 | 0.9 |
| Max drawdown | -20.7% | -17.7% |
| Current drawdown | -6.5% | -7.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 25.5% | 28% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CCK or PKG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CCK is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against PKG's 54. The edge comes from value. PKG 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 CCK or PKG 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CCK over PKG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CCK leads Value by 24 points; PKG leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; PKG leads Quality by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CCK or PKG?
Analyst price targets imply +8% upside for CCK and +10.9% for PKG, so the Street currently favors PKG. 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 PKG?
CCK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CCK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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 PKG?
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 PKG?
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, CCK or PKG?
PKG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PKG on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 CCK more profitable than PKG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 17.5% vs 20.1%; operating margin 13.8% vs 12.7%; ttm roe 26.5% vs 14.9%. CCK leads on two measures and PKG 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 PKG getting stronger or weaker?
CCK lead: Reversed — PKG led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CCK now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when CCK moved ahead of PKG.
What would change the CCK vs PKG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PKG closes the Value gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to CCK's edge; PKG generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish; 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 PKG?
CCK: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PKG: 3 bullish / 0 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 CCK is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PKG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CCK and PKG 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.