CL vs COTY Stock Comparison
Compare CL and COTY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CL and COTY?
COTY leads the current stock comparison as Coty Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Colgate-Palmolive Company vs Coty Inc.
COTY leads
COTY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CL on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support COTY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Colgate-Palmolive Company
Coty Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COTY over CL, 46 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. COTY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CL holds the stronger risk resilience profile. COTY also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CL. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor COTY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Colgate-Palmolive Company and Coty Inc. 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 COTY 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.
- Value31 vs 61COTY +30
- Risk Resilience51 vs 38CL +13
- Quality34 vs 39COTY +5
- Momentum40 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor COTY. COTY’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CL keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
COTY's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CL and COTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COTY (Coty Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CL (Colgate-Palmolive Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, 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
COTYCOTY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
COTYCOTY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
COTYCOTY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
CLCL on Risk Resilience, by 13 points.
Analyst upside
CLCL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors COTY, analyst targets favor CL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CL | COTY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.8% | -2.2% | CL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +37.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 5 | 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 COTY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | COTY | 37 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | CLon balance | revenue growth 0.7% vs -1%; EPS growth 7.4% vs 66%; TTM ROE 6.3% vs -18.1%; gross margin 60.4% vs 59.1%; operating margin 20.7% vs 5% — CL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COTY | Value 31 vs 61 |
| Technicals | COTY | Price vs 50-day -5.2% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 0% vs 1.5% |
| Risk Resilience | CL | Risk Resilience 51 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | CL | Target upside 12.8% vs -2.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CL and COTY 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 9 points.
- 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 COTY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COTY +9
- 37 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- COTY +16
- 38 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- COTY +16
- 38 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- COTY +7
- 45 vs 52
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.64%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.52%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
COTY 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).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.66%, 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 Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to COTY's edge.
- 2CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3COTY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate COTY'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 | CL | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.7% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 7.4% | 66% |
| Gross margin | 60.4% | 59.1% |
| Operating margin | 20.7% | 5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 6.3% | -18.1% |
| Debt to equity | 33.29 | 1.15 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CL | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.4% | -9.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.8% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.3% | 32.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 12.4% |
| Year to date | 11.2% | -14.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.4% | -39.1% |
Technicals
COTY has the stronger structure| Metric | CL | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.9 | 42.1 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 18.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.2% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0% | 1.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.6% | 67.9% |
Risk
CL is the more resilient| Metric | CL | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.14 | 0.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -0.8 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.23 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -17.5% | -58.4% |
| Current drawdown | -11.3% | -40.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 22.7% | 49.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -5.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CL or COTY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COTY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against CL's 37. The edge comes from value and quality. CL 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 CL or COTY the better buy right now?
COTY 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COTY over CL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COTY leads Value by 30 points; CL leads Risk Resilience by 13 points; COTY leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CL or COTY?
Analyst price targets imply +12.8% upside for CL and -2.2% for COTY, so the Street currently favors CL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors COTY. 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 COTY?
COTY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COTY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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 COTY?
COTY 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 COTY?
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, CL or COTY?
CL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CL on Risk Resilience, by 13 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 COTY?
CL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 60.4% vs 59.1%; operating margin 20.7% vs 5%; ttm roe 6.3% vs -18.1%.
Is COTY's lead over CL getting stronger or weaker?
COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CL vs COTY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to COTY's edge; CL's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; COTY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate COTY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CL and COTY?
CL: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. COTY: 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 CL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On COTY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CL and COTY 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.