JBS vs KDP Stock Comparison
Compare JBS and KDP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between JBS and KDP?
KDP leads the current stock comparison as Keurig Dr Pepper Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Jbs N.V. vs Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
KDP leads
KDP leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from JBS. Wall Street currently favors JBS on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support KDP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Jbs N.V.
Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KDP over JBS, 46 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. KDP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while JBS holds the stronger value profile. KDP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBS. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KDP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. KDP lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KDP now leads by 6.
Compare Jbs N.V. and Keurig Dr Pepper Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare JBS and KDP 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.
- Momentum24 vs 60KDP +36
- Value71 vs 46JBS +25
- Quality23 vs 37KDP +14
- Risk Resilience41 vs 42Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor KDP. KDP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; JBS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -10
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
KDP's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBS and KDP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KDP (Keurig Dr Pepper Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
JBS (Jbs N.V.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
KDPKDP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KDPKDP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
JBSJBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
KDPKDP on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
JBSJBS carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
JBSJBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KDP, analyst targets favor JBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JBS | KDP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +50.1% | +16.4% | JBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.7% | +38.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 8 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KDP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KDP | 40 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | KDPon balance | revenue growth -78.6% vs 83.8%; EPS growth -109.3% vs -77.9%; TTM ROE 17.7% vs 5.6%; gross margin 11.9% vs 49.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 16.8% — KDP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | JBS | Value 71 vs 46 |
| Technicals | KDP | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 0.5%; vs 200-day -12.9% vs 7.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 41 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | JBS | Target upside 50.1% vs 16.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBS and KDP 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (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 KDP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KDP lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KDP now leads by 6.
- Today
- KDP +6
- 40 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- KDP +5
- 46 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- JBS +13
- 56 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JBS +8
- 55 vs 47
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jun 17 when JBS moved ahead of KDP.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (11.14%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.89%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
KDP 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 down over the latest session (price -0.24%, AIQ -1 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.22%, AIQ -3 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.
- 1JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to KDP's edge.
- 2JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
KDP leads on balance| Metric | JBS | KDP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -78.6% | 83.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -109.3% | -78% |
| Gross margin | 11.9% | 49.4% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 16.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.7% | 5.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.97 | 1.37 |
Performance
KDP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | JBS | KDP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.8% | -3.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.8% | 6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.9% | -0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | 13.8% |
| Year to date | -12.5% | 12.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.7% | 13.8% |
Technicals
KDP has the stronger structure| Metric | JBS | KDP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.5 | 48.1 |
| ADX (14) | 15.4 | 26.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 0.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.9% | 7.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.4% | 30.9% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JBS | KDP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | 0.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.58 | 0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | 0.77 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -18.4% |
| Current drawdown | -31.5% | -6.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.5% | 26.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBS or KDP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KDP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against JBS's 40. The edge comes from momentum and quality. JBS 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 JBS or KDP the better buy right now?
KDP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 KDP over JBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KDP leads Momentum by 36 points; JBS leads Value by 25 points; KDP leads Quality by 14 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBS or KDP?
Analyst price targets imply +50.1% upside for JBS and +16.4% for KDP, so the Street currently favors JBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KDP. 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, JBS or KDP?
JBS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. JBS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, JBS or KDP?
KDP 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, JBS or KDP?
KDP on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, JBS or KDP?
JBS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. JBS 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 JBS more profitable than KDP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.9% vs 49.4%; operating margin 3.8% vs 16.8%; ttm roe 17.7% vs 5.6%. JBS leads on one measure and KDP on two measures, 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 KDP's lead over JBS getting stronger or weaker?
KDP lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KDP now leads by 6. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-06-17, when JBS moved ahead of KDP.
What would change the JBS vs KDP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 36 points behind, the largest single contributor to KDP's edge; JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KDP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 JBS and KDP?
JBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KDP: 3 bullish / 1 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 JBS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KDP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare JBS and KDP 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.