CHD vs CL Stock Comparison
Compare CHD and CL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CHD and CL?
CHD leads the current stock comparison as Church & Dwight Co., Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Church & Dwight Co., Inc. vs Colgate-Palmolive Company
CHD leads
CHD leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 12 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CHD, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Church & Dwight Co., Inc.
Colgate-Palmolive Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CHD over CL, 42 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. CHD's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CL holds the stronger momentum profile. CHD also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHD today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. CHD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Church & Dwight Co., Inc. and Colgate-Palmolive Company 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 CHD and CL 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.
- Quality60 vs 34CHD +26
- Momentum29 vs 40CL +11
- Risk Resilience55 vs 51CHD +4
- Value28 vs 31Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CHD. CHD’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -6
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
CHD's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CHD and CL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CHD (Church & Dwight Co., Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals.
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
CHDCHD on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CLCL on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
CHDCHD on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
CHDCHD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CHD | CL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.6% | +12.8% | CHD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +16.5% | +30.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 8 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CHD. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CHD | 42 vs 37 |
| Fundamentals | CLon balance | EPS growth -5.5% vs 7.4%; TTM ROE 17.8% vs 6.3%; gross margin 45.6% vs 60.4%; operating margin 17.5% vs 20.7% — CL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 28 vs 31 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -5% vs -5.2%; vs 200-day -0.9% vs 0% |
| Risk Resilience | CHD | Risk Resilience 55 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | CHD | Target upside 15.6% vs 12.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CHD and CL 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)
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 CHD.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CHD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CHD +5
- 42 vs 37
- 7 sessions ago
- CHD +9
- 47 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CHD +12
- 50 vs 38
- 90 sessions ago
- CHD +5
- 50 vs 45
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 8 when CL moved ahead of CHD.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.21%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.25%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CHD 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 +0.22%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.25%, 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.
- 1CL closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHD's edge.
- 2CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CHD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate CHD'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
CL leads on balance| Metric | CHD | CL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.1% | 0.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.5% | 7.4% |
| Gross margin | 45.6% | 60.4% |
| Operating margin | 17.5% | 20.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.8% | 6.3% |
| Debt to equity | 0.56 | 33.29 |
Performance
CL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CHD | CL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.4% | -2.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.2% | -4.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -4.3% | -2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.7% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | 12% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -0.7% | 4.4% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | CHD | CL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.9 | 40.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5% | -5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.9% | 0% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.2% | 16.6% |
Risk
CHD is the more resilient| Metric | CHD | CL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.07 | -0.14 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.1 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.16 | 0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -14% | -17.5% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -11.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.4% | 22.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CHD or CL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CHD is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against CL's 37. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CL 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 CHD or CL the better buy right now?
CHD carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 CHD over CL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CHD leads Quality by 26 points; CL leads Momentum by 11 points; CHD leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CHD or CL?
Analyst price targets imply +15.6% upside for CHD and +12.8% for CL, so the Street currently favors CHD. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CHD or CL?
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, CHD or CL?
CL 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, CHD or CL?
CL on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, CHD or CL?
CHD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CHD on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 CHD more profitable than CL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 45.6% vs 60.4%; operating margin 17.5% vs 20.7%; ttm roe 17.8% vs 6.3%. CHD leads on one measure and CL on two measures, 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 CHD's lead over CL getting stronger or weaker?
CHD lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-08, when CL moved ahead of CHD.
What would change the CHD vs CL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CL closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to CHD's edge; CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CHD's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 5-point move would eliminate CHD's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CHD and CL?
CHD: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. CL: 1 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 CHD is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CHD and CL 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.