JBS vs KR Stock Comparison
Compare JBS and KR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between JBS and KR?
KR leads the current stock comparison as The Kroger Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Jbs N.V. vs The Kroger Co.
KR leads
KR leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from JBS. Wall Street currently favors JBS on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support KR, and the lead recently changed hands.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KR over JBS, 46 versus 40 as of Sep 11, 2026. KR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience. KR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors JBS. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. KR lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KR now leads by 6.
Compare Jbs N.V. and The Kroger Co. 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 KR 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 44KR +20
- Risk Resilience41 vs 47KR +6
- Value71 vs 68Even
- Quality23 vs 25Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor KR. KR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience.
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 +2
No new signals fired.
KR's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JBS and KR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KR (The Kroger Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
JBS (Jbs N.V.): the counter-case, on 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
KRKR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KRKR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
KRKR on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
KRKR on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
JBSJBS on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KR, analyst targets favor JBS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | JBS | KR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +50.1% | +21.8% | JBS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.7% | +33.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 3 | 9 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KR | 40 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | KRon balance | revenue growth -78.6% vs 32.8%; EPS growth -109.3% vs 6.6%; TTM ROE 17.7% vs 14.7%; gross margin 11.9% vs 23.2%; operating margin 3.8% vs 1.3% — KR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 71 vs 68 |
| Technicals | KR | Price vs 50-day -3.4% vs 1.3%; vs 200-day -12.9% vs -10.9% |
| Risk Resilience | KR | Risk Resilience 41 vs 47 |
| Analyst expectations | JBS | Target upside 50.1% vs 21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JBS and KR 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.
- 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)
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 KR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10KR lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KR now leads by 6.
- Today
- KR +6
- 40 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- KR +7
- 46 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- JBS +13
- 56 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- JBS +14
- 55 vs 41
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when KR moved ahead of JBS.
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
0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (10.70%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
JBS is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 up over the latest session (price +2.7%, 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.
- 1JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to KR's edge.
- 2JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
KR leads on balance| Metric | JBS | KR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -78.6% | 32.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -109.3% | 6.6% |
| Gross margin | 11.9% | 23.2% |
| Operating margin | 3.8% | 1.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 17.7% | 14.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.97 | 3.63 |
Performance
KR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JBS | KR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.8% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.8% | 1.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 4.9% | -11.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17% | -21.1% |
| Year to date | -12.5% | -8.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.7% | -16.2% |
Technicals
KR has the stronger structure| Metric | JBS | KR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 29.5 | 53.2 |
| ADX (14) | 15.4 | 9.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.4% | 1.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -12.9% | -10.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.4% | 22.5% |
Risk
KR is the more resilient| Metric | JBS | KR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.24 | -0.62 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.58 | -0.61 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.93 | -0.92 |
| Max drawdown | -36.9% | -26.6% |
| Current drawdown | -31.5% | -24.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 33.5% | 28.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JBS or KR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against JBS's 40. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. 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 KR the better buy right now?
KR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KR over JBS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KR leads Momentum by 20 points; KR leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JBS or KR?
Analyst price targets imply +50.1% upside for JBS and +21.8% for KR, so the Street currently favors JBS. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KR. 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 KR?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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 KR?
KR 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 KR?
KR on the Momentum factor, by 20 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 KR?
KR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KR on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 JBS more profitable than KR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 11.9% vs 23.2%; operating margin 3.8% vs 1.3%; ttm roe 17.7% vs 14.7%. JBS leads on two measures and KR 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 KR's lead over JBS getting stronger or weaker?
KR lead: Reversed — JBS led by 13 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; KR 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when KR moved ahead of JBS.
What would change the JBS vs KR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JBS closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to KR's edge; JBS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KR starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 KR?
JBS: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. KR: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 KR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JBS and KR 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.