CELH vs DKS Stock Comparison
DKS currently leads CELH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 51 vs 46. The clearest difference is value, while CELH has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CELH and DKS?
DKS leads the current stock comparison as DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Celsius Holdings, Inc. vs DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc.
DKS leads
DKS leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Value, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CELH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DKS, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Celsius Holdings, Inc.
DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DKS over CELH, 51 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. DKS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while CELH holds the stronger quality profile. DKS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CELH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DKS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Celsius Holdings, Inc. and DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. 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 DKS 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.
- Value35 vs 69DKS +34
- Quality53 vs 39CELH +14
- Risk Resilience58 vs 51CELH +7
- Momentum45 vs 45Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DKS. DKS’s edge is concentrated in value; CELH keeps a meaningful quality 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 -28
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.64%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
DKS's lead narrowed by 7 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CELH and DKS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DKS (DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
CELH (Celsius Holdings, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 40.5% against 34.9%.
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
DKSDKS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DKSDKS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DKSDKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CELHCELH on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 DKS, analyst targets favor CELH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CELH | DKS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +53% | +24.3% | CELH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +69.6% | +101.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 18 | 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 DKS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DKS | 46 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | DKSon balance | revenue growth 4.5% vs 8.2%; EPS growth -57.6% vs -1.7%; TTM ROE 4.4% vs 15%; gross margin 48.8% vs 32.1%; operating margin 7.9% vs 6.8% — DKS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DKS | Value 35 vs 69 |
| Technicals | CELH | Price vs 50-day -0.5% vs 3.6%; vs 200-day -19.5% vs -29.6% |
| Risk Resilience | CELH | Risk Resilience 58 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CELH | Target upside 53% vs 24.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CELH and DKS 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 DKS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28DKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DKS +5
- 46 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- DKS +11
- 47 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- DKS +11
- 43 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- CELH +12
- 54 vs 42
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when DKS 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
- Beta Spike Warning — bearish, risk, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DKS 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 8 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.3%, AIQ -8 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to DKS's edge.
- 2CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DKS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate DKS's advantage entirely.
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
DKS leads on balance| Metric | CELH | DKS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.5% | 8.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -57.6% | -1.7% |
| Gross margin | 48.8% | 32.1% |
| Operating margin | 7.9% | 6.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.4% | 15% |
| Debt to equity | 0.23 | 1.39 |
Performance
CELH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CELH | DKS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.2% | -4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.3% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | -31.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -14.3% | -38.1% |
| Year to date | -38.8% | -31.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.8% | -39.6% |
Technicals
CELH has the stronger structure| Metric | CELH | DKS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 53.8 | 52.4 |
| ADX (14) | 13.7 | 21.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.5% | 3.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.5% | -29.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.5% | 34.9% |
Risk
CELH is the more resilient| Metric | CELH | DKS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.03 | -0.91 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.32 | -0.98 |
| Max drawdown | -61.6% | -49.4% |
| Current drawdown | -54.8% | -43.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 62% | 47.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.5% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CELH or DKS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DKS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 51 against CELH's 46. The edge comes from value. CELH is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 DKS the better buy right now?
DKS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DKS over CELH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DKS leads Value by 34 points; CELH leads Quality by 14 points; CELH leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CELH or DKS?
Analyst price targets imply +53% upside for CELH and +24.3% for DKS, so the Street currently favors CELH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DKS. 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 DKS?
DKS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DKS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 34 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 DKS?
DKS 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 DKS?
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 DKS?
CELH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CELH on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 DKS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.8% vs 32.1%; operating margin 7.9% vs 6.8%; ttm roe 4.4% vs 15%. CELH leads on two measures and DKS 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 DKS's lead over CELH getting stronger or weaker?
DKS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 5 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when DKS moved ahead of CELH.
What would change the CELH vs DKS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CELH closes the Value gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to DKS's edge; CELH's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DKS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate DKS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CELH and DKS?
CELH: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. DKS: 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 CELH is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DKS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CELH and DKS 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.