FLO vs GPC Stock Comparison
FLO currently leads GPC in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 48 vs 42. The clearest difference is value, while GPC has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between FLO and GPC?
FLO leads the current stock comparison as Flowers Foods, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Flowers Foods, Inc. vs Genuine Parts Company
FLO leads
FLO leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors GPC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FLO, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Genuine Parts Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLO over GPC, 48 versus 42 as of Oct 31, 2026. FLO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while GPC holds the stronger risk resilience profile. FLO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GPC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLO today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Flowers Foods, Inc. and Genuine Parts Company 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 FLO and GPC 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.
- Risk Resilience29 vs 52GPC +23
- Value73 vs 58FLO +15
- Momentum46 vs 36FLO +10
- Quality33 vs 25FLO +8
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FLO. FLO’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; GPC keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
FLO's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLO and GPC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLO (Flowers Foods, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
GPC (Genuine Parts Company): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals, 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
FLOFLO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GPCGPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLOFLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
FLOFLO on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
GPCGPC on Risk Resilience, by 23 points.
Analyst upside
GPCGPC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FLO, analyst targets favor GPC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | FLO | GPC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.3% | +17.7% | GPC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +33.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 6 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FLO | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.46% | 5.45% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.790 | $3.160 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.983 | $4.120 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #270 | #235 |
GPC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 5.45% a year against FLO's 4.46%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FLO | 48 vs 42 |
| Fundamentals | FLOon balance | EPS growth -5% vs -1.2%; gross margin 47.9% vs 36.4%; operating margin 5.5% vs 4% — FLO takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLO | Value 73 vs 58 |
| Technicals | GPC | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -7.4%; vs 200-day -23.8% vs 1.1% |
| Risk Resilience | GPC | Risk Resilience 29 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | GPC | Target upside -4.3% vs 17.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLO and GPC 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 6 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 FLO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28FLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLO +6
- 48 vs 42
- 7 sessions ago
- FLO +7
- 49 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- FLO +4
- 46 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- GPC +6
- 46 vs 52
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 18 when FLO moved ahead of GPC.
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 FLO
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (29.76%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.94%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only GPC
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.76%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FLO 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 +1.46%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.22%, 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.
- 1GPC closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLO's edge.
- 2GPC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3FLO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
FLO leads on balance| Metric | FLO | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.1% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5% | -1.2% |
| Gross margin | 47.9% | 36.4% |
| Operating margin | 5.5% | 4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | 0.7% |
| Debt to equity | 1.52 | 1.47 |
Performance
GPC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FLO | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.7% | -2.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | -3.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.8% | 17.5% |
| Year to date | -43.6% | -1.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -51% | -7.3% |
Technicals
GPC has the stronger structure| Metric | FLO | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 38.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 21.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -7.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.8% | 1.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 32.1% |
Risk
GPC is the more resilient| Metric | FLO | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | 0.49 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | -0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | -0.26 |
| Max drawdown | -55.9% | -38% |
| Current drawdown | -51.1% | -18.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 33.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLO or GPC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 48 against GPC's 42. The edge comes from value and momentum. GPC is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 FLO or GPC the better buy right now?
FLO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLO over GPC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GPC leads Risk Resilience by 23 points; FLO leads Value by 15 points; FLO leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLO or GPC?
Analyst price targets imply -4.3% upside for FLO and +17.7% for GPC, so the Street currently favors GPC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FLO. 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, FLO or GPC?
FLO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLO 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, FLO or GPC?
GPC 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, FLO or GPC?
FLO on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, FLO or GPC?
GPC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GPC on Risk Resilience, by 23 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 FLO more profitable than GPC?
FLO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.9% vs 36.4%; operating margin 5.5% vs 4%; ttm roe 4.1% vs 0.7%.
Is FLO's lead over GPC getting stronger or weaker?
FLO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2026-09-18, when FLO moved ahead of GPC.
What would change the FLO vs GPC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GPC closes the Value gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLO's edge; GPC's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; FLO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 FLO and GPC?
FLO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GPC: 1 bullish / 1 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 FLO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GPC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FLO and GPC 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.