FLO vs HRL Stock Comparison
HRL currently leads FLO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 48. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while FLO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between FLO and HRL?
HRL leads the current stock comparison as Hormel Foods Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Flowers Foods, Inc. vs Hormel Foods Corporation
HRL leads
HRL leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from FLO.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support HRL, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Flowers Foods, Inc.
Hormel Foods Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HRL over FLO, 50 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. HRL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while FLO holds the stronger value profile. HRL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HRL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. HRL lead: Reversed — FLO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HRL now leads by 2.
Compare Flowers Foods, Inc. and Hormel Foods Corporation 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 HRL 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 59HRL +30
- Value73 vs 56FLO +17
- Momentum46 vs 56HRL +10
- Quality33 vs 36Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor HRL. HRL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; FLO keeps a meaningful value 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
HRL's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLO and HRL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HRL (Hormel Foods Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
FLO (Flowers Foods, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 48.7% against 25.2%.
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
HRLHRL on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
FLOFLO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLOFLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 points.
Momentum
HRLHRL on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
HRLHRL on Risk Resilience, by 30 points.
Analyst upside
HRLHRL 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 | FLO | HRL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -4.3% | +15.1% | HRL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | FLO | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.46% | 4.52% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.790 | $0.930 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.983 | $1.160 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #270 | #266 |
HRL grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.52% 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 HRL. 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 | 48 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | FLO | EPS growth -5% vs -62.1%; TTM ROE 4.1% vs 4.3%; gross margin 47.9% vs 15.7%; operating margin 5.5% vs 4.7% |
| Valuation | FLO | Value 73 vs 56 |
| Technicals | HRL | Price vs 50-day 1% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -23.8% vs -9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | HRL | Risk Resilience 29 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | HRL | Target upside -4.3% vs 15.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLO and HRL 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 3 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 HRL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28HRL lead: Reversed — FLO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HRL now leads by 2.
- Today
- HRL +2
- 48 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- HRL +1
- 49 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- FLO +3
- 46 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- FLO +2
- 46 vs 44
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 17 when HRL moved ahead of FLO.
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
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.94%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HRL
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
HRL 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 is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.82%, 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.
- 1FLO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HRL's edge.
- 2FLO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3HRL'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 | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -24.1% | -0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5% | -62.1% |
| Gross margin | 47.9% | 15.7% |
| Operating margin | 5.5% | 4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | 4.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.52 | 0.36 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | FLO | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.7% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10.6% | 3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14% | -18.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -30.8% | -1.2% |
| Year to date | -43.6% | -13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -51% | -13.5% |
Technicals
HRL has the stronger structure| Metric | FLO | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55.2 | 66.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 26.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -23.8% | -9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.7% | 25.2% |
Risk
HRL is the more resilient| Metric | FLO | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | -0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.68 | -0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.68 | -0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -55.9% | -27.6% |
| Current drawdown | -51.1% | -22.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 40.4% | 29.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLO or HRL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HRL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against FLO's 48. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. FLO 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 FLO or HRL the better buy right now?
HRL 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HRL over FLO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HRL leads Risk Resilience by 30 points; FLO leads Value by 17 points; HRL 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 HRL?
Analyst price targets imply -4.3% upside for FLO and +15.1% for HRL, so the Street currently favors HRL. 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, FLO or HRL?
FLO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 17 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 HRL?
FLO 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 HRL?
HRL 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 HRL?
HRL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HRL on Risk Resilience, by 30 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 HRL?
FLO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 47.9% vs 15.7%; operating margin 5.5% vs 4.7%; ttm roe 4.1% vs 4.3%.
Is HRL's lead over FLO getting stronger or weaker?
HRL lead: Reversed — FLO led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HRL now leads by 2. 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 2026-09-17, when HRL moved ahead of FLO.
What would change the FLO vs HRL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to HRL's edge; FLO's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; HRL'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 HRL?
FLO: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. HRL: 1 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 FLO is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HRL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare FLO and HRL 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.