JNJ vs PEP Stock Comparison
PEP currently leads JNJ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 51. The clearest difference is momentum, while JNJ has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between JNJ and PEP?
PEP leads the current stock comparison as PepsiCo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Johnson & Johnson vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from JNJ.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PEP, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Johnson & Johnson
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over JNJ, 56 versus 51 as of Oct 21, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while JNJ holds the stronger quality profile. PEP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. PEP lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PEP now leads by 5.
Compare Johnson & Johnson and PepsiCo, Inc. 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 JNJ and PEP 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.
- Momentum44 vs 61PEP +17
- Value39 vs 48PEP +9
- Quality71 vs 64JNJ +7
- Risk Resilience48 vs 49Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; JNJ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
PEP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — JNJ and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
JNJ (Johnson & Johnson): the counter-case, on quality, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 28.8% against 22.4%.
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
PEPPEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
PEPPEP on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
PEPPEP 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 | JNJ | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.4% | +11.6% | PEP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.3% | +33.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | JNJ | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.25% | 6.92% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.980 | $4.023 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.140 | $5.623 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #240 | #194 |
PEP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.92% a year against JNJ's 5.25%. 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 PEP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PEP | 51 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -96.2% vs 2.3%; TTM ROE 19.7% vs 50.7%; gross margin 68.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 25.7% vs 15.3% |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 39 vs 48 |
| Technicals | JNJ | Price vs 50-day -2.8% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day 6% vs -8.3% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | PEP | Target upside 9.4% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of JNJ and PEP 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 5 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 PEP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PEP lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PEP now leads by 5.
- Today
- PEP +5
- 51 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PEP +3
- 49 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- JNJ +11
- 57 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- JNJ +9
- 56 vs 47
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Oct 13 when PEP moved ahead of JNJ.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only JNJ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.37%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only PEP
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.88%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
PEP 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.61%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.51%, 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.
- 1JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
Split| Metric | JNJ | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.4% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -96.2% | 2.3% |
| Gross margin | 68.8% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | 25.7% | 15.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.7% | 50.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.58 | 2.33 |
Performance
JNJ leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | JNJ | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 4.3% | 5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | 2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | -1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 14.7% | -13.5% |
| Year to date | 25.3% | -6.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 35% | -12.2% |
Technicals
JNJ has the stronger structure| Metric | JNJ | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 45.3 | 67.8 |
| ADX (14) | 15.1 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2.8% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6% | -8.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.8% | 22.4% |
Risk
Split| Metric | JNJ | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.21 | -0.17 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.36 | -0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.03 | -1.26 |
| Max drawdown | -11% | -27.4% |
| Current drawdown | -6.8% | -21.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.4% | 20.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.9% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, JNJ or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against JNJ's 51. The edge comes from momentum and value. JNJ is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 JNJ or PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PEP over JNJ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PEP leads Momentum by 17 points; PEP leads Value by 9 points; JNJ leads Quality by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, JNJ or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +9.4% upside for JNJ and +11.6% for PEP, so the Street currently favors PEP. 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, JNJ or PEP?
PEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, JNJ or PEP?
PEP 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, JNJ or PEP?
PEP on the Momentum factor, by 17 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, JNJ or PEP?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP 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 JNJ more profitable than PEP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 68.8% vs 54.2%; operating margin 25.7% vs 15.3%; ttm roe 19.7% vs 50.7%. JNJ leads on two measures and PEP 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 PEP's lead over JNJ getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Reversed — JNJ led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PEP now leads by 5. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-10-13, when PEP moved ahead of JNJ.
What would change the JNJ vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: JNJ closes the Momentum gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; JNJ's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PEP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 JNJ and PEP?
JNJ: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PEP: 2 bullish / 3 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 JNJ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare JNJ and PEP 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.