CL vs CLX Stock Comparison
Compare CL and CLX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CL and CLX?
CL leads the current stock comparison as Colgate-Palmolive Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Colgate-Palmolive Company vs The Clorox Company
CL leads
CL leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from CLX. Wall Street currently favors CLX on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Colgate-Palmolive Company
The Clorox Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CL over CLX, 37 versus 30 as of Sep 11, 2026. CL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while CLX holds the stronger value profile. CL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CLX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CL lead: Reversed — CLX led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CL now leads by 7.
Compare Colgate-Palmolive Company and The Clorox 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 CL and CLX 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.
- Momentum40 vs 19CL +21
- Quality34 vs 19CL +15
- Value31 vs 46CLX +15
- Risk Resilience51 vs 40CL +11
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CL. CL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; CLX keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
CL's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CL and CLX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
CLX (The Clorox Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 23.5% against 16.6%.
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
CLCL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CLCL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLXCLX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
CLCL on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
CLCL on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
CLXCLX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CL, analyst targets favor CLX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CL | CLX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.8% | +14.9% | CLX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +55.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | 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 CL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CL | 37 vs 30 |
| Fundamentals | CLon balance | EPS growth 7.4% vs -13%; TTM ROE 6.3% vs -18.9%; gross margin 60.4% vs 42.3%; operating margin 20.7% vs 24.7% — CL takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CLX | Value 31 vs 46 |
| Technicals | CL | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs -11.8%; vs 200-day 0% vs -13.8% |
| Risk Resilience | CL | Risk Resilience 51 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | CLX | Target upside 12.8% vs 14.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CL and CLX 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 moderate at 7 points.
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CL lead: Reversed — CLX led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CL now leads by 7.
- Today
- CL +7
- 37 vs 30
- 7 sessions ago
- CL +8
- 38 vs 30
- 30 sessions ago
- CLX +5
- 38 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- CL +7
- 45 vs 38
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when CL moved ahead of CLX.
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 / 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
1 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.59%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CL 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.25%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.14%, 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.
- 1CLX closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CL's edge.
- 2CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CL leads on balance| Metric | CL | CLX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.7% | 16.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.4% | -13% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 42.3% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 24.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.3% | -18.9% |
| Debt to equity | 33.29 | 61.33 |
Performance
CL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CL | CLX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -5.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | -16.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | -10.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | -20.8% |
| Year to date | 11.2% | -12% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.4% | -29.5% |
Technicals
CL has the stronger structure| Metric | CL | CLX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.9 | 16.8 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 30.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | -11.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0% | -13.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.6% | 23.5% |
Risk
CL is the more resilient| Metric | CL | CLX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.14 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -1.1 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | -1.51 |
| Max drawdown | -17.5% | -32.3% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -30.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.7% | 30.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CL or CLX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 37 against CLX's 30. The edge comes from momentum and quality. CLX is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CL or CLX the better buy right now?
CL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CL over CLX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CL leads Momentum by 21 points; CL leads Quality by 15 points; CLX leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CL or CLX?
Analyst price targets imply +12.8% upside for CL and +14.9% for CLX, so the Street currently favors CLX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CL. 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, CL or CLX?
CLX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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, CL or CLX?
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, CL or CLX?
CL on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, CL or CLX?
CL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CL on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 CL more profitable than CLX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 60.4% vs 42.3%; operating margin 20.7% vs 24.7%; ttm roe 6.3% vs -18.9%. CL leads on two measures and CLX 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 CL's lead over CLX getting stronger or weaker?
CL lead: Reversed — CLX led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CL now leads by 7. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when CL moved ahead of CLX.
What would change the CL vs CLX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLX closes the Momentum gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CL's edge; CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CL's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 CL and CLX?
CL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CLX: 1 bullish / 4 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 CL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CLX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CL and CLX 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.