KMB vs MGRC Stock Comparison
Compare KMB and MGRC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between KMB and MGRC?
MGRC leads the current stock comparison as McGrath RentCorp, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kimberly-Clark Corporation vs McGrath RentCorp
MGRC leads
MGRC leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 6 of 6 evidence groups support MGRC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
McGrath RentCorp
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MGRC over KMB, 49 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. MGRC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. MGRC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGRC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MGRC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kimberly-Clark Corporation and McGrath RentCorp 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 KMB and MGRC 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.
- Value47 vs 61MGRC +14
- Risk Resilience45 vs 52MGRC +7
- Momentum21 vs 24Even
- Quality57 vs 56Even
6 of 6 evidence groups favor MGRC. MGRC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
MGRC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMB and MGRC 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
MGRCMGRC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MGRCMGRC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MGRCMGRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MGRCMGRC on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
MGRCMGRC 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 | MGRC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +12.4% | +26.8% | MGRC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +19.9% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Strong Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
6 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MGRC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MGRC | 43 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | MGRCon balance | EPS growth -48% vs 25.5%; TTM ROE 122.6% vs 12.4%; gross margin 36.7% vs 46.9%; operating margin 12.4% vs 25.5% — MGRC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MGRC | Value 47 vs 61 |
| Technicals | MGRC | Price vs 50-day -10.1% vs -5.4%; vs 200-day -4.6% vs -2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MGRC | Risk Resilience 45 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | MGRC | Target upside 12.4% vs 26.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMB and MGRC 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 6 points.
- 6 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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 MGRC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MGRC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MGRC +6
- 43 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- MGRC +6
- 53 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- KMB +5
- 58 vs 53
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 21 when KMB moved ahead of MGRC.
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.
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.77%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.75%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MGRC 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.49%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1KMB closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGRC's edge.
- 2KMB's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3MGRC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
MGRC leads on balance| Metric | KMB | MGRC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | 11.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | 25.5% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 46.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 25.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 122.6% | 12.4% |
| Debt to equity | 3.72 | 0.47 |
Performance
MGRC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | KMB | MGRC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.9% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -9.6% | -8.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.1% | -2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.6% | 4.9% |
| Year to date | -2.4% | 4.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -24.1% | -11% |
Technicals
MGRC has the stronger structure| Metric | KMB | MGRC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.5 | 22.6 |
| ADX (14) | 17.7 | 18.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.1% | -5.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | -4.6% | -2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25.7% | 15.1% |
Risk
MGRC is the more resilient| Metric | KMB | MGRC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.06 | 0.5 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.04 | -0.43 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.18 | -0.63 |
| Max drawdown | -28.9% | -24.1% |
| Current drawdown | -24.8% | -12.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.6% | 26.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMB or MGRC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MGRC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against KMB's 43. The edge comes from value 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 KMB or MGRC the better buy right now?
MGRC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 6 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 MGRC over KMB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MGRC leads Value by 14 points; MGRC leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KMB or MGRC?
Analyst price targets imply +12.4% upside for KMB and +26.8% for MGRC, so the Street currently favors MGRC. 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, KMB or MGRC?
MGRC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MGRC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 14 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 MGRC?
MGRC 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 MGRC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 MGRC?
MGRC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MGRC on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 MGRC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.7% vs 46.9%; operating margin 12.4% vs 25.5%; ttm roe 122.6% vs 12.4%. KMB leads on one measure and MGRC 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 MGRC's lead over KMB getting stronger or weaker?
MGRC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-21, when KMB moved ahead of MGRC.
What would change the KMB vs MGRC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KMB closes the Value gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to MGRC's edge; KMB's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; MGRC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 KMB and MGRC?
KMB: 3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. MGRC: 2 bullish / 1 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 KMB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MGRC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KMB and MGRC 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.