CMG vs DRI Stock Comparison
Compare CMG and DRI across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CMG and DRI?
DRI leads the current stock comparison as Darden Restaurants, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. vs Darden Restaurants, Inc.
DRI leads
DRI leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 18 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CMG on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support DRI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
Darden Restaurants, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DRI over CMG, 48 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. DRI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CMG holds the stronger momentum profile. DRI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CMG. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. DRI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and Darden Restaurants, 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 CMG and DRI 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.
- Momentum65 vs 33CMG +32
- Quality51 vs 70DRI +19
- Value25 vs 40DRI +15
- Risk Resilience46 vs 44Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor DRI. DRI’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CMG 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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
DRI's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMG and DRI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DRI (Darden Restaurants, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CMG (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 33.4% against 27.1%.
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
DRIDRI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CMGCMG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DRIDRI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
CMGCMG on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
DRIDRI carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
CMGCMG on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DRI, analyst targets favor CMG. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMG | DRI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.6% | +10.9% | CMG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +16.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DRI. 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 | 46 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | DRIon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 11.2%; EPS growth 39.1% vs 33.1%; TTM ROE 53.3% vs 56%; gross margin 24.1% vs 69.4%; operating margin 15.2% vs 12% — DRI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | DRI | Value 25 vs 40 |
| Technicals | CMG | Price vs 50-day 3.3% vs 0.1%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 2.8% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | CMG | Target upside 15.6% vs 10.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMG and DRI 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DRI.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DRI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DRI +2
- 46 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- DRI +3
- 49 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- DRI +18
- 42 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- DRI +7
- 46 vs 53
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jul 16 when DRI moved ahead of CMG.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.32%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.88%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DRI 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 +0.19%, 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.
- 1CMG closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge.
- 2CMG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3DRI'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 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate DRI'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
DRI leads on balance| Metric | CMG | DRI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 11.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 39.1% | 33.1% |
| Gross margin | 24.1% | 69.4% |
| Operating margin | 15.2% | 12% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 53.3% | 56% |
| Debt to equity | 2.46 | 2.74 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | CMG | DRI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -5.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.7% | -8.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 18.8% | 1.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | 2% |
| Year to date | -2.4% | 12.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.9% | -1.5% |
Technicals
CMG has the stronger structure| Metric | CMG | DRI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 21.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.3% | 0.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 2.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.4% | 27.1% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CMG | DRI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | 0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | -0.08 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | -0.12 |
| Max drawdown | -33.5% | -20.7% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -8.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 27.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMG or DRI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DRI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against CMG's 46. The edge comes from quality and value. CMG 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 CMG or DRI the better buy right now?
DRI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 DRI over CMG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMG leads Momentum by 32 points; DRI leads Quality by 19 points; DRI leads Value by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMG or DRI?
Analyst price targets imply +15.6% upside for CMG and +10.9% for DRI, so the Street currently favors CMG. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DRI. 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, CMG or DRI?
DRI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DRI 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, CMG or DRI?
CMG 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, CMG or DRI?
CMG on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, CMG or DRI?
DRI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DRI 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 CMG more profitable than DRI?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.1% vs 69.4%; operating margin 15.2% vs 12%; ttm roe 53.3% vs 56%. CMG leads on one measure and DRI 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 DRI's lead over CMG getting stronger or weaker?
DRI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 18 to 2 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-16, when DRI moved ahead of CMG.
What would change the CMG vs DRI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CMG closes the Quality gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to DRI's edge; CMG's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; DRI'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 16 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate DRI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CMG and DRI?
CMG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DRI: 2 bullish / 2 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 CMG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On DRI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMG and DRI 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.