CMG vs MCD Stock Comparison
Compare CMG and MCD across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CMG and MCD?
CMG leads the current stock comparison as Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. vs McDonald's Corporation
CMG leads
CMG leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from MCD. Wall Street currently favors MCD on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CMG, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.
McDonald's Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMG over MCD, 46 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. CMG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while MCD holds the stronger value profile. CMG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MCD. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. CMG lead: Reversed — MCD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMG now leads by 7.
Compare Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc. and McDonald's Corporation 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 MCD 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 21CMG +44
- Value25 vs 35MCD +10
- Quality51 vs 56MCD +5
- Risk Resilience46 vs 45Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CMG. CMG’s edge is concentrated in momentum; MCD 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 -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
CMG's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMG and MCD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMG (Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
MCD (McDonald's Corporation): the counter-case, on value, quality, fundamentals.
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
CMGCMG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CMGCMG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MCDMCD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
CMGCMG on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
MCDMCD carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MCDMCD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors CMG, analyst targets favor MCD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CMG | MCD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.6% | +25.7% | MCD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +20.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 13 | 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 CMG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CMG | 46 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | MCDon balance | revenue growth 8.4% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 39.1% vs 19%; TTM ROE 53.3% vs -5.6%; gross margin 24.1% vs 57.4%; operating margin 15.2% vs 45.8% — MCD takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MCD | Value 25 vs 35 |
| Technicals | CMG | Price vs 50-day 3.3% vs -6%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs -14.2% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 46 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | MCD | Target upside 15.6% vs 25.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMG and MCD 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.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 CMG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10CMG lead: Reversed — MCD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMG now leads by 7.
- Today
- CMG +7
- 46 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- CMG +9
- 49 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- MCD +2
- 42 vs 44
- 90 sessions ago
- MCD +1
- 46 vs 47
The lead changed hands 11 times in this window, most recently on Aug 24 when CMG moved ahead of MCD.
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
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.91%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CMG 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 -0.21%, 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.
- 1MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMG's edge.
- 2MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CMG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
MCD leads on balance| Metric | CMG | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 8.4% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 39.1% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 24.1% | 57.4% |
| Operating margin | 15.2% | 45.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 53.3% | -5.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.46 | -53.36 |
Performance
CMG leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CMG | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.2% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.7% | -8.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 18.8% | -10.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 6.7% | -22.2% |
| Year to date | -2.4% | -16.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.9% | -19.1% |
Technicals
CMG has the stronger structure| Metric | CMG | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 25.7 |
| ADX (14) | 20.3 | 25.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.3% | -6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | -14.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.4% | 18% |
Risk
Split| Metric | CMG | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.71 | -0.02 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | -1.26 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | -1.94 |
| Max drawdown | -33.5% | -25.8% |
| Current drawdown | -14.7% | -25.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.9% | 18.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMG or MCD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against MCD's 39. The edge comes from momentum. MCD 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 CMG or MCD the better buy right now?
CMG 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: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CMG over MCD?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMG leads Momentum by 44 points; MCD leads Value by 10 points; MCD leads Quality by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMG or MCD?
Analyst price targets imply +15.6% upside for CMG and +25.7% for MCD, so the Street currently favors MCD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors CMG. 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 MCD?
MCD is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MCD on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 MCD?
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 MCD?
CMG on the Momentum factor, by 44 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 MCD?
MCD is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MCD 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 MCD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.1% vs 57.4%; operating margin 15.2% vs 45.8%; ttm roe 53.3% vs -5.6%. CMG leads on one measure and MCD 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 CMG's lead over MCD getting stronger or weaker?
CMG lead: Reversed — MCD led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMG 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 11 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-24, when CMG moved ahead of MCD.
What would change the CMG vs MCD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMG's edge; MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CMG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 CMG and MCD?
CMG: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MCD: 1 bullish / 5 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 CMG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MCD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CMG and MCD 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.