CELH vs DG Stock Comparison
DG currently leads CELH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 46. The clearest difference is value, while CELH has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between CELH and DG?
DG leads the current stock comparison as Dollar General Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Celsius Holdings, Inc. vs Dollar General Corporation
DG leads
DG leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors CELH on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support DG, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
Dollar General Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DG over CELH, 49 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. DG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while CELH holds the stronger risk resilience profile. DG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CELH. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Celsius Holdings, Inc. and Dollar General Corporation 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 CELH and DG 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.
- Risk Resilience58 vs 35CELH +23
- Value35 vs 57DG +22
- Momentum45 vs 62DG +17
- Quality53 vs 38CELH +15
2 of 6 evidence groups favor DG. DG’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; CELH keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
New signals
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
DG's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CELH and DG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DG (Dollar General Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
CELH (Celsius Holdings, Inc.): 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
DGDG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DGDG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DGDG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
DGDG on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
CELHCELH on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 DG, analyst targets favor CELH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CELH | DG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +53% | +1.9% | CELH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +69.6% | +37.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 15 | 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 DG. 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 | 46 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 4.5% vs 4.7%; EPS growth -57.6% vs 23.3%; TTM ROE 4.4% vs 19.6%; gross margin 48.8% vs 31.2%; operating margin 7.9% vs 5.6% |
| Valuation | DG | Value 35 vs 57 |
| Technicals | DG | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs 5%; vs 200-day -19.5% vs 0.2% |
| Risk Resilience | CELH | Risk Resilience 58 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | CELH | Target upside 53% vs 1.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CELH and DG 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 DG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28DG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DG +3
- 46 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- DG +7
- 47 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- DG +1
- 43 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- CELH +8
- 54 vs 46
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when DG moved ahead of CELH.
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 / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CELH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (18.74%)
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DG
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode.
DG 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.41%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.7%, 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.
- 1CELH closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to DG's edge.
- 2CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
Split| Metric | CELH | DG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.5% | 4.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -57.6% | 23.3% |
| Gross margin | 48.8% | 31.2% |
| Operating margin | 7.9% | 5.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 19.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 1.68 |
Performance
DG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CELH | DG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.3% | 5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | -1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.3% | 10.5% |
| Year to date | -38.8% | -5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.8% | 23.7% |
Technicals
DG has the stronger structure| Metric | CELH | DG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 52.5 |
| ADX (14) | 13.7 | 21.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.5% | 0.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 38.3% |
Risk
CELH is the more resilient| Metric | CELH | DG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.03 | 0.65 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.32 | 1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -61.6% | -34.9% |
| Current drawdown | -54.8% | -19.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 62% | 38.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CELH or DG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against CELH's 46. The edge comes from value and momentum. CELH 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 CELH or DG the better buy right now?
DG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DG over CELH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CELH leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; DG leads Value by 22 points; DG leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CELH or DG?
Analyst price targets imply +53% upside for CELH and +1.9% for DG, so the Street currently favors CELH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DG. 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 DG?
DG is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DG on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 DG?
DG 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 DG?
DG on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, CELH or DG?
CELH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CELH on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 DG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.8% vs 31.2%; operating margin 7.9% vs 5.6%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 19.6%. CELH leads on two measures and DG 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 DG's lead over CELH getting stronger or weaker?
DG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when DG moved ahead of CELH.
What would change the CELH vs DG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CELH closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to DG's edge; CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 CELH and DG?
CELH: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. DG: 3 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 CELH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CELH and DG 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.