DNUT vs DPZ Stock Comparison
DPZ currently leads DNUT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 45 vs 42. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between DNUT and DPZ?
DPZ leads the current stock comparison as Domino's Pizza, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Krispy Kreme, Inc. vs Domino's Pizza, Inc.
DPZ leads
DPZ leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors DNUT on target upside.
Fragile: 0 of 6 evidence groups support DPZ, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Krispy Kreme, Inc.
Domino's Pizza, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DPZ over DNUT, 45 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. DPZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality. DPZ also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors DNUT. 0 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DPZ today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. DPZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Krispy Kreme, Inc. and Domino's Pizza, 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 DNUT and DPZ 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.
- Quality40 vs 48DPZ +8
- Momentum44 vs 47Even
- Value42 vs 42Even
- Risk Resilience42 vs 42Even
0 of 6 evidence groups favor DPZ. DPZ’s edge is concentrated in quality.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +3
New signals
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -7
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
DPZ's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DNUT and DPZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DPZ (Domino's Pizza, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
DNUT (Krispy Kreme, Inc.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 41.3% against 29.4%.
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
DPZDPZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DNUTDNUT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DPZDPZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
DNUTDNUT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DPZ, analyst targets favor DNUT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DNUT | DPZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.1% | +11.7% | DNUT has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +28.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | 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
0 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DPZ. 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 | 42 vs 45 |
| Fundamentals | DNUT | EPS growth 25% vs 13.3%; TTM ROE -14.9% vs -17.6%; gross margin 46.8% vs 40% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 42 vs 42 |
| Technicals | DNUT | Price vs 50-day 4.7% vs -0.5%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs -9.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 42 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | DNUT | Target upside 22.1% vs 11.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DNUT and DPZ 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 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 DPZ.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28DPZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DPZ +3
- 42 vs 45
- 7 sessions ago
- DPZ +7
- 41 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- DPZ +8
- 40 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when DPZ moved ahead of DNUT.
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 / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only DNUT
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.81%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
DPZ 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.34%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.55%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1DNUT closes the Quality gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to DPZ's edge.
- 2DNUT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DPZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate DPZ'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
DNUT leads on balance| Metric | DNUT | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.8% | -0.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | 13.3% |
| Gross margin | 46.8% | 40% |
| Operating margin | -1% | 19.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -14.9% | -17.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | -0.75 |
Performance
DNUT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DNUT | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.9% | -0.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.3% | 3.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5% | -12.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -7.2% |
| Year to date | -24.1% | -25.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.4% | -25.4% |
Technicals
DNUT has the stronger structure| Metric | DNUT | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.2 | 50.6 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 13.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.7% | -0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | -9.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.3% | 29.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DNUT | DPZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.51 | 0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | -0.88 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | -1.36 |
| Max drawdown | -40% | -35.4% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -29.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.2% | 31.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DNUT or DPZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DPZ is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 45 against DNUT's 42. The edge comes from quality. 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 DNUT or DPZ the better buy right now?
DPZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DPZ over DNUT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DPZ leads Quality by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DNUT or DPZ?
Analyst price targets imply +22.1% upside for DNUT and +11.7% for DPZ, so the Street currently favors DNUT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DPZ. 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, DNUT or DPZ?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, DNUT or DPZ?
DNUT 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, DNUT or DPZ?
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, DNUT or DPZ?
DPZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DPZ 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 DNUT more profitable than DPZ?
DNUT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 46.8% vs 40%; operating margin -1% vs 19.8%; ttm roe -14.9% vs -17.6%.
Is DPZ's lead over DNUT getting stronger or weaker?
DPZ lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when DPZ moved ahead of DNUT.
What would change the DNUT vs DPZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DNUT closes the Quality gap — currently 8 points behind, the largest single contributor to DPZ's edge; DNUT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DPZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate DPZ's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about DNUT and DPZ?
DNUT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DPZ: 1 bullish / 2 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 DNUT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DPZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DNUT and DPZ 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.