CF vs PPG Stock Comparison
CF currently leads PPG in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 66. The clearest difference is quality, while PPG has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CF and PPG?
CF leads the current stock comparison as CF Industries Holdings, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CF Industries Holdings, Inc. vs PPG Industries, Inc.
CF leads
CF leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality. Wall Street currently favors PPG on target upside.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support CF, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
CF Industries Holdings, Inc.
PPG Industries, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CF over PPG, 68 versus 66 as of Oct 31, 2026. CF's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while PPG holds the stronger momentum profile. CF also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PPG. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. CF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CF Industries Holdings, Inc. and PPG Industries, 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 CF and PPG 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.
- Quality80 vs 54CF +26
- Momentum63 vs 82PPG +19
- Risk Resilience61 vs 64Even
- Value64 vs 66Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor CF. CF’s edge is concentrated in quality; PPG keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
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.
CF's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CF and PPG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CF (CF Industries Holdings, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
PPG (PPG Industries, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, 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
CFCF on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
PPGPPG on the Momentum factor, by 19 points.
Lower downside
CFCF carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PPGPPG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CF, analyst targets favor PPG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CF | PPG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.4% | +9.5% | PPG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +41.2% | +18.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 8 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CF | PPG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.76% | 5.77% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $2.100 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.000 | $2.780 |
| Years increased | 3 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #82 | #220 |
CF grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.76% a year against PPG's 5.77%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CF. 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 | 68 vs 66 |
| Fundamentals | CFon balance | revenue growth 11.9% vs 14.4%; EPS growth 18.8% vs 14.6%; TTM ROE 40.4% vs 19.5%; gross margin 42.5% vs 40.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 12.5% — CF takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 64 vs 66 |
| Technicals | PPG | Price vs 50-day -0.2% vs 10.2%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 5.4% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 61 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | PPG | Target upside 2.4% vs 9.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CF and PPG 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 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 CF.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28CF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CF +2
- 68 vs 66
- 7 sessions ago
- CF +3
- 67 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- CF +2
- 59 vs 57
- 90 sessions ago
- CF +11
- 70 vs 59
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 23 when CF moved ahead of PPG.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
Only CF
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.49%)
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only PPG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.52%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
PPG 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 +4.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.4%, 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.
- 1PPG closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge.
- 2PPG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
CF leads on balance| Metric | CF | PPG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.9% | 14.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.8% | 14.6% |
| Gross margin | 42.5% | 40.1% |
| Operating margin | 38.1% | 12.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 40.4% | 19.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.63 | 0.88 |
Performance
PPG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CF | PPG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 7.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | 13.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.7% | 5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.4% | 13.1% |
| Year to date | 55.1% | 15.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.7% | 13.6% |
Technicals
PPG has the stronger structure| Metric | CF | PPG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 64.8 | 77.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 25.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.2% | 10.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 5.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22% | 26.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CF | PPG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -1.06 | 1.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.9 | 0.41 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.46 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -25.8% | -26.1% |
| Current drawdown | -13.9% | -10% |
| Annualized volatility | 42.8% | 31% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CF or PPG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CF is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 68 against PPG's 66. The edge comes from quality. PPG is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CF or PPG the better buy right now?
CF carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 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 CF over PPG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CF leads Quality by 26 points; PPG leads Momentum by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CF or PPG?
Analyst price targets imply +2.4% upside for CF and +9.5% for PPG, so the Street currently favors PPG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CF. 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, CF or PPG?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CF or PPG?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, CF or PPG?
PPG on the Momentum factor, by 19 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, CF or PPG?
CF is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CF 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 CF more profitable than PPG?
CF leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 42.5% vs 40.1%; operating margin 38.1% vs 12.5%; ttm roe 40.4% vs 19.5%.
Is CF's lead over PPG getting stronger or weaker?
CF lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 2 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-23, when CF moved ahead of PPG.
What would change the CF vs PPG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PPG closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CF's edge; PPG's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CF's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 CF and PPG?
CF: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. PPG: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, 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 CF is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PPG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CF and PPG 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.