KMB vs KO Stock Comparison
Compare KMB vs KO on performance, valuation, growth, fundamentals, momentum and risk; the current AIQ evidence does not show a clear headline leader.
What is the main difference between KMB and KO?
KMB and KO are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kimberly-Clark Corporation vs The Coca-Cola Company
KMB and KO are effectively level
KMB and KO are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
The Coca-Cola Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate KMB and KO as of Oct 31, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Kimberly-Clark Corporation and The Coca-Cola Company 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 KMB and KO 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.
- Quality57 vs 80KO +23
- Value47 vs 27KMB +20
- Momentum82 vs 73KMB +9
- Risk Resilience44 vs 53KO +9
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
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 -1, 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 -3
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
KO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMB and KO both carry a full feed there.
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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
KOKO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KMBKMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
KMBKMB on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
KOKO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
KMBKMB 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 | KMB | KO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | -0.4% | KMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13.8% | +22.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KMB | KO |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.32% | 4.46% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.280 | $1.640 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.040 | $2.040 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #302 | #269 |
KO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.46% a year against KMB's 3.32%. 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
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 58 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | KOon balance | EPS growth -48% vs 13.2%; TTM ROE 122.6% vs 43%; gross margin 36.7% vs 61.9%; operating margin 12.4% vs 29.6% — KO takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KMB | Value 47 vs 27 |
| Technicals | KO | Price vs 50-day 5% vs 5.3%; vs 200-day 5.3% vs 12% |
| Risk Resilience | KO | Risk Resilience 44 vs 53 |
| Analyst expectations | KMB | Target upside 7.2% vs -0.4% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 0 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28KO lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- KO +1
- 59 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- KO +2
- 48 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- KO +5
- 55 vs 60
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 7 when KO moved ahead of KMB.
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 / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only KMB
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.07%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only KO
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.07%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 -1.89%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.36%, AIQ -1 points).
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
KO leads on balance| Metric | KMB | KO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | 7.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | 13.2% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 61.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 29.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 122.6% | 43% |
| Debt to equity | 3.72 | 1.2 |
Performance
KO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | KMB | KO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.7% | -1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 11.3% | 6.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.6% | 3.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.8% | 16.3% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | 31.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -8.9% | 31.6% |
Technicals
KO has the stronger structure| Metric | KMB | KO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 72.7 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 33.4 | 27.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5% | 5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.3% | 12% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.4% | 22% |
Risk
KO is the more resilient| Metric | KMB | KO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.03 | -0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.37 | 1.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.43 | 2.37 |
| Max drawdown | -22.9% | -8.5% |
| Current drawdown | -10.2% | -3.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.7% | 19.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, KMB or KO?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for KMB and -0.4% for KO, so the Street currently favors KMB. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, KMB or KO?
KMB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, KMB or KO?
KO 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, KMB or KO?
KMB on the Momentum factor, by 9 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, KMB or KO?
KO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 KMB more profitable than KO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.7% vs 61.9%; operating margin 12.4% vs 29.6%; ttm roe 122.6% vs 43%. KMB leads on one measure and KO 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.
What do the current signals say about KMB and KO?
KMB: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. KO: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 KMB is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KMB and KO 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.