CELH vs DECK Stock Comparison
Compare CELH and DECK across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CELH and DECK?
DECK leads the current stock comparison as Deckers Outdoor Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Celsius Holdings, Inc. vs Deckers Outdoor Corporation
DECK leads
DECK leads by 19 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CELH on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DECK, and its lead is widening.
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Deckers Outdoor Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DECK over CELH, 59 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. DECK's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value. DECK also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CELH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DECK today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Celsius Holdings, Inc. and Deckers Outdoor 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 CELH and DECK 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.
- Quality53 vs 93DECK +40
- Value35 vs 51DECK +16
- Risk Resilience50 vs 66DECK +16
- Momentum23 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DECK. DECK’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 -1
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
DECK's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CELH and DECK both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DECK (Deckers Outdoor Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CELH (Celsius Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 60% against 35.8%.
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
DECKDECK on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DECKDECK on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DECKDECK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DECKDECK on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
CELHCELH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DECK, analyst targets favor CELH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CELH | DECK | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +67.8% | +48.8% | CELH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +83.2% | +49.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DECK. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DECK | 40 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | DECKon balance | revenue growth 4.5% vs -8.9%; EPS growth -57.6% vs -2.1%; TTM ROE 4.4% vs 41.1%; gross margin 48.8% vs 57.8%; operating margin 7.9% vs 22.7% — DECK takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DECK | Value 35 vs 51 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9.6% vs -15.3%; vs 200-day -29.1% vs -21.5% |
| Risk Resilience | DECK | Risk Resilience 50 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | CELH | Target upside 67.8% vs 48.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CELH and DECK and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 19 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 DECK.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 19 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DECK +19
- 40 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- DECK +14
- 48 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- DECK +7
- 51 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- DECK +14
- 52 vs 66
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (24.76%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 5 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.86%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (0.5%)
CELH is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 +2.22%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.74%, 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.
- 1CELH closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to DECK's edge.
- 2CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DECK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
DECK leads on balance| Metric | CELH | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.5% | -8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -57.6% | -2.1% |
| Gross margin | 48.8% | 57.8% |
| Operating margin | 7.9% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 41.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 0.21 |
Performance
DECK leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CELH | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14.9% | -4.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.6% | -12.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.1% | -26% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -41.8% | -22.2% |
| Year to date | -40.6% | -22.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -52.1% | -31.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CELH | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.8 | 31.2 |
| ADX (14) | 16.2 | 39 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.6% | -15.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.1% | -21.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 60% | 35.8% |
Risk
DECK is the more resilient| Metric | CELH | DECK |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.09 | 1.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.94 | -0.69 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.19 | -1.11 |
| Max drawdown | -63.4% | -34% |
| Current drawdown | -58.9% | -34% |
| Annualized volatility | 62.1% | 44.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.7% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CELH or DECK?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DECK is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against CELH's 40. 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 CELH or DECK the better buy right now?
DECK carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DECK over CELH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DECK leads Quality by 40 points; DECK leads Value by 16 points; DECK leads Risk Resilience by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CELH or DECK?
Analyst price targets imply +67.8% upside for CELH and +48.8% for DECK, so the Street currently favors CELH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DECK. 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, CELH or DECK?
DECK is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DECK on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, CELH or DECK?
DECK 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, CELH or DECK?
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, CELH or DECK?
DECK is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DECK 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 CELH more profitable than DECK?
DECK leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 48.8% vs 57.8%; operating margin 7.9% vs 22.7%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 41.1%.
Is DECK's lead over CELH getting stronger or weaker?
DECK lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 19 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CELH vs DECK verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CELH closes the Quality gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to DECK's edge; CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DECK starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 CELH and DECK?
CELH: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DECK: 0 bullish / 5 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 CELH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DECK it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CELH and DECK 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.