CLX vs COTY Stock Comparison
COTY currently leads CLX in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while CLX has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CLX and COTY?
COTY leads the current stock comparison as Coty Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Clorox Company vs Coty Inc.
COTY leads
COTY leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CLX on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support COTY, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Clorox Company
Coty Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors COTY over CLX, 55 versus 46 as of Nov 7, 2026. COTY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CLX holds the stronger momentum profile. COTY 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 COTY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Clorox Company and Coty 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 CLX 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.
- Quality19 vs 39COTY +20
- Value45 vs 60COTY +15
- Momentum84 vs 78CLX +6
- Risk Resilience36 vs 39Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor COTY. COTY’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CLX keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-11-06, compared against the prior scored session 2026-11-05.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
COTY's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLX and COTY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
COTY (Coty Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CLX (The Clorox Company): the counter-case, on momentum, 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 15 points.
Momentum
CLXCLX on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
CLXCLX carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CLXCLX 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 CLX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CLX | COTY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -6.4% | -29.4% | CLX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.7% | +14% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 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
4 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 | 46 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | COTYon balance | EPS growth -13% vs 66%; TTM ROE -18.9% vs -18.1%; gross margin 42.3% vs 59.1%; operating margin 24.7% vs 5% — COTY takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | COTY | Value 45 vs 60 |
| Technicals | COTY | Price vs 50-day 14% vs 37.5%; vs 200-day 0.5% vs 52.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 36 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | CLX | Target upside -6.4% vs -29.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLX 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.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 COTY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 8 – Nov 6COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- COTY +9
- 46 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- COTY +18
- 38 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- COTY +18
- 38 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- COTY +24
- 30 vs 54
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only CLX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.34%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only COTY
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.89%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.86%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.26%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.58%, 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 Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to COTY's edge.
- 2CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3COTY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 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
COTY leads on balance| Metric | CLX | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.6% | -1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -13% | 66% |
| Gross margin | 42.3% | 59.1% |
| Operating margin | 24.7% | 5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -18.9% | -18.1% |
| Debt to equity | 61.33 | 1.15 |
Performance
COTY leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CLX | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 12.1% | 19% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 17.3% | 41.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -7.2% | 42.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 8.5% | 45.8% |
| Year to date | -0.9% | 12.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.8% | 4.2% |
Technicals
COTY has the stronger structure| Metric | CLX | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 77 | 76.9 |
| ADX (14) | 29.2 | 33.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 14% | 37.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.5% | 52.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.5% | 64.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CLX | COTY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.32 | 0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.14 | 0.35 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.21 | 0.5 |
| Max drawdown | -36.8% | -50.9% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.7% | 52.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLX or COTY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, COTY is the stronger of the two as of Nov 7, 2026, scoring 55 against CLX's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. CLX 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 CLX or COTY the better buy right now?
COTY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Nov 7, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor COTY over CLX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. COTY leads Quality by 20 points; COTY leads Value by 15 points; CLX leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLX or COTY?
Analyst price targets imply -6.4% upside for CLX and -29.4% for COTY, so the Street currently favors CLX. 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, CLX or COTY?
COTY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. COTY 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, CLX 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, CLX or COTY?
CLX on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, CLX or COTY?
CLX is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CLX 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 CLX more profitable than COTY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 42.3% vs 59.1%; operating margin 24.7% vs 5%; ttm roe -18.9% vs -18.1%. CLX leads on one measure and COTY 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 COTY's lead over CLX getting stronger or weaker?
COTY lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 9 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-08 and 2026-11-06. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CLX vs COTY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CLX closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to COTY's edge; CLX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; COTY's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 9-point move would eliminate COTY's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CLX and COTY?
CLX: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. COTY: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 CLX is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On COTY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CLX 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.