GIS vs HRL Stock Comparison
HRL currently leads GIS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 39. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while GIS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between GIS 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
General Mills, Inc. vs Hormel Foods Corporation
HRL leads
HRL leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support HRL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
General Mills, Inc.
Hormel Foods Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HRL over GIS, 50 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. HRL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while GIS holds the stronger value profile. HRL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HRL today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. HRL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare General Mills, 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 GIS 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 Resilience28 vs 59HRL +31
- Quality17 vs 36HRL +19
- Momentum45 vs 56HRL +11
- Value60 vs 56GIS +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor HRL. HRL’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; GIS 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 -5
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 was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — GIS 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 quality.
GIS (General Mills, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 40.4% 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
GISGIS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GISGIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
HRLHRL on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
HRLHRL on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 | GIS | HRL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.7% | +15.1% | HRL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +37.3% | +24.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | GIS | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.09% | 4.52% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.980 | $0.930 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.420 | $1.160 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #284 | #266 |
HRL grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.52% a year against GIS's 4.09%. 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
4 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 | HRL | 39 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | GIS | EPS growth -7.6% vs -62.1%; gross margin 33.4% vs 15.7%; operating margin 20% vs 4.7% |
| Valuation | GIS | Value 60 vs 56 |
| Technicals | HRL | Price vs 50-day -3.8% vs 1.6%; vs 200-day -12.1% vs -9.8% |
| Risk Resilience | HRL | Risk Resilience 28 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | HRL | Target upside 1.7% vs 15.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of GIS and HRL and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 11 points.
- 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 HRL.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28HRL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- HRL +11
- 39 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- HRL +10
- 40 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- HRL +9
- 34 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- GIS +2
- 46 vs 44
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 8 when HRL moved ahead of GIS.
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.
GIS and HRL carry the same 4 signals, so the signals do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.91%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1GIS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to HRL's edge.
- 2GIS'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
GIS leads on balance| Metric | GIS | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.9% | -0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -7.6% | -62.1% |
| Gross margin | 33.4% | 15.7% |
| Operating margin | 20% | 4.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -1% | 4.3% |
| Debt to equity | 1.84 | 0.36 |
Performance
HRL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | GIS | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.5% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.8% | 3.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.3% | -18.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -4.1% | -1.2% |
| Year to date | -28.9% | -13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -30.3% | -13.5% |
Technicals
HRL has the stronger structure| Metric | GIS | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.3 | 66.7 |
| ADX (14) | 25.5 | 26.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.8% | 1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.1% | -9.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.4% | 25.2% |
Risk
HRL is the more resilient| Metric | GIS | HRL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.39 | -0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.23 | -0.45 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.93 | -0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -35.4% | -27.6% |
| Current drawdown | -32.6% | -22.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.2% | 29.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.1% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, GIS or HRL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HRL is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against GIS's 39. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. GIS 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 GIS or HRL the better buy right now?
HRL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HRL over GIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HRL leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; HRL leads Quality by 19 points; HRL leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, GIS or HRL?
Analyst price targets imply +1.7% upside for GIS 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, GIS or HRL?
GIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, GIS or HRL?
GIS 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, GIS or HRL?
HRL 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, GIS or HRL?
HRL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HRL on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 GIS more profitable than HRL?
GIS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33.4% vs 15.7%; operating margin 20% vs 4.7%; ttm roe -1% vs 4.3%.
Is HRL's lead over GIS getting stronger or weaker?
HRL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 11 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-08, when HRL moved ahead of GIS.
What would change the GIS vs HRL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GIS closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to HRL's edge; GIS'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 GIS and HRL?
GIS: 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 GIS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On HRL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare GIS 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.