DNUT vs PZZA Stock Comparison
PZZA currently leads DNUT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 46 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while DNUT has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between DNUT and PZZA?
PZZA leads the current stock comparison as Papa John's International, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Krispy Kreme, Inc. vs Papa John's International, Inc.
PZZA leads
PZZA leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PZZA, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Krispy Kreme, Inc.
Papa John's International, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PZZA over DNUT, 46 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. PZZA's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while DNUT holds the stronger momentum profile. PZZA also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PZZA today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. PZZA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Krispy Kreme, Inc. and Papa John's International, 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 PZZA 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.
- Value42 vs 61PZZA +19
- Momentum44 vs 33DNUT +11
- Risk Resilience42 vs 50PZZA +8
- Quality40 vs 40Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PZZA. PZZA’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; DNUT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
PZZA's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DNUT and PZZA both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PZZA (Papa John's International, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
DNUT (Krispy Kreme, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 41.3% against 25%.
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
PZZAPZZA on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PZZAPZZA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PZZAPZZA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
DNUTDNUT on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
PZZAPZZA on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
PZZAPZZA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DNUT | PZZA | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +22.1% | +40% | PZZA has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +50.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PZZA. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PZZA | 42 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | DNUTon balance | EPS growth 25% vs 19%; TTM ROE -14.9% vs -6.2%; gross margin 46.8% vs 23.2% — DNUT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PZZA | Value 42 vs 61 |
| Technicals | DNUT | Price vs 50-day 4.7% vs -10.8%; vs 200-day -8.9% vs -38.7% |
| Risk Resilience | PZZA | Risk Resilience 42 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | PZZA | Target upside 22.1% vs 40% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DNUT and PZZA 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 4 points. (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 PZZA.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28PZZA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PZZA +4
- 42 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- PZZA +3
- 41 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- PZZA +5
- 40 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when PZZA 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
No signal that the other name lacks.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PZZA
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PZZA 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.84%, 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.
- 1DNUT closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to PZZA's edge.
- 2DNUT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PZZA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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
DNUT leads on balance| Metric | DNUT | PZZA |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.8% | 0.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 46.8% | 23.2% |
| Operating margin | -1% | 4.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -14.9% | -6.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.76 | -2.06 |
Performance
DNUT leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DNUT | PZZA |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.9% | 1.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.3% | -5.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5% | -38.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -16.4% | -47.1% |
| Year to date | -24.1% | -51.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -23.4% | -66.1% |
Technicals
DNUT has the stronger structure| Metric | DNUT | PZZA |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.2 | 39.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15 | 33.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.7% | -10.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.9% | -38.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 41.3% | 25% |
Risk
PZZA is the more resilient| Metric | DNUT | PZZA |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.51 | 0.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.26 | -1.87 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.5 | -2.72 |
| Max drawdown | -40% | -65.5% |
| Current drawdown | -35.1% | -64.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.2% | 50.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.6% | -5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DNUT or PZZA?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PZZA is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 46 against DNUT's 42. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. DNUT 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 DNUT or PZZA the better buy right now?
PZZA carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PZZA over DNUT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PZZA leads Value by 19 points; DNUT leads Momentum by 11 points; PZZA leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DNUT or PZZA?
Analyst price targets imply +22.1% upside for DNUT and +40% for PZZA, so the Street currently favors PZZA. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, DNUT or PZZA?
PZZA is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PZZA on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, DNUT or PZZA?
PZZA 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 PZZA?
DNUT on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, DNUT or PZZA?
PZZA is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PZZA on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 DNUT more profitable than PZZA?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 46.8% vs 23.2%; operating margin -1% vs 4.1%; ttm roe -14.9% vs -6.2%. Each name leads on one measure, 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 PZZA's lead over DNUT getting stronger or weaker?
PZZA lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 4 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-03, when PZZA moved ahead of DNUT.
What would change the DNUT vs PZZA verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DNUT closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to PZZA's edge; DNUT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PZZA's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 3 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 DNUT and PZZA?
DNUT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PZZA: 1 bullish / 3 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 DNUT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On PZZA it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DNUT and PZZA 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.