KMB vs PG Stock Comparison
PG currently leads KMB in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 61 vs 59. The clearest difference is quality, while KMB has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between KMB and PG?
PG leads the current stock comparison as The Procter & Gamble Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kimberly-Clark Corporation vs The Procter & Gamble Company
PG leads
PG leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 11 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors KMB on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PG, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PG over KMB, 61 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. PG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while KMB holds the stronger value profile. PG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors KMB. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. PG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kimberly-Clark Corporation and The Procter & Gamble 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 PG 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 73PG +16
- Value47 vs 34KMB +13
- Risk Resilience47 vs 54PG +7
- Momentum84 vs 82Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PG. PG’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; KMB keeps a meaningful value 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 +3
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
PG'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 PG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
KMB (Kimberly-Clark Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 26.1% against 18.9%.
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
PGPG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PGPG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
KMBKMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
PGPG on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
KMBKMB on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PG, analyst targets favor KMB. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | KMB | PG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +0.9% | KMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +12.9% | +19% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KMB | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.32% | 6.02% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.280 | $3.118 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.040 | $4.177 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #302 | #210 |
PG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.02% 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 61 |
| Fundamentals | PGon balance | revenue growth 0.6% vs -0.2%; EPS growth -48% vs -23.5%; TTM ROE 122.6% vs 29.8%; gross margin 36.7% vs 50.2%; operating margin 12.4% vs 22.7% — PG takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | KMB | Value 47 vs 34 |
| Technicals | PG | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs 6.4%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs 7.4% |
| Risk Resilience | PG | Risk Resilience 47 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | KMB | Target upside 8.6% vs 0.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMB and PG 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 PG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20PG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PG +2
- 59 vs 61
- 7 sessions ago
- PG +3
- 58 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +11
- 49 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- KMB +4
- 51 vs 47
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when PG 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.
4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only KMB
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.23%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only PG
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.56%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PG 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.56%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.56%, 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 Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge.
- 2KMB's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3PG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PG's advantage entirely.
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
PG leads on balance| Metric | KMB | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | -23.5% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 50.2% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 122.6% | 29.8% |
| Debt to equity | 3.72 | 0.64 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | KMB | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | 4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.5% | 7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.5% | 6.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.1% | 9.3% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | 11.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.1% | 6.5% |
Technicals
PG has the stronger structure| Metric | KMB | PG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.3 | 82 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 28.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | 6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | 7.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 18.9% |
Risk
PG is the more resilient| Metric | KMB | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.08 | -0.05 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.46 | 0.28 |
| Max drawdown | -23.4% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 19.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMB or PG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 61 against KMB's 59. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. KMB 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 KMB or PG the better buy right now?
PG 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PG over KMB?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PG leads Quality by 16 points; KMB leads Value by 13 points; PG 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 PG?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for KMB and +0.9% for PG, so the Street currently favors KMB. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PG. 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, KMB or PG?
KMB is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. KMB on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 PG?
PG 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 PG?
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 PG?
PG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PG 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 PG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.7% vs 50.2%; operating margin 12.4% vs 22.7%; ttm roe 122.6% vs 29.8%. KMB leads on one measure and PG 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 PG's lead over KMB getting stronger or weaker?
PG lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 11 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when PG moved ahead of KMB.
What would change the KMB vs PG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KMB closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge; KMB's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; PG's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 9 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate PG's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about KMB and PG?
KMB: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. PG: 3 bullish / 2 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 PG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare KMB and PG 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.