KMB vs WM Stock Comparison
KMB currently leads WM in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 58. The clearest difference is quality, while WM has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between KMB and WM?
KMB leads the current stock comparison as Kimberly-Clark Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Kimberly-Clark Corporation vs Waste Management, Inc.
KMB leads
KMB leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 1 of 6 evidence groups support KMB, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Waste Management, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KMB over WM, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 22, 2026. KMB's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while WM holds the stronger momentum profile. KMB also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KMB today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. KMB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Waste Management, 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 KMB and WM 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 45KMB +12
- Momentum84 vs 89WM +5
- Risk Resilience47 vs 51WM +4
- Value47 vs 48Even
1 of 6 evidence groups favor KMB. KMB’s edge is concentrated in quality; WM keeps a meaningful momentum 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: Momentum +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.
KMB's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KMB and WM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KMB (Kimberly-Clark Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
WM (Waste Management, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience.
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
KMBKMB on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WMWM on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
WMWM on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
WMWM on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 | WM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.6% | +2.1% | KMB has more room |
| Target dispersion | +12.9% | +8.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | KMB | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 3.32% | 8.65% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $4.280 | $2.180 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $5.040 | $3.300 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #302 | #129 |
WM grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 8.65% 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
1 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KMB. 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 58 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -48% vs 9.5%; TTM ROE 122.6% vs 28.9%; gross margin 36.7% vs 35%; operating margin 12.4% vs 18.5% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 47 vs 48 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 3.7% vs 6.1%; vs 200-day 5.6% vs 3.2% |
| Risk Resilience | WM | Risk Resilience 47 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | KMB | Target upside 8.6% vs 2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KMB and WM 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (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 KMB.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20KMB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KMB +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- KMB +3
- 58 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- KMB +7
- 49 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- KMB +8
- 51 vs 43
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when KMB moved ahead of WM.
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%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only WM
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.82%)
Both carry 4 more signals that do not separate them: BB Upper Band Breach, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
KMB 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 -0.93%, 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.
- 1WM closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KMB's edge.
- 2WM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate KMB'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
Split| Metric | KMB | WM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | 7.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -48% | 9.5% |
| Gross margin | 36.7% | 35% |
| Operating margin | 12.4% | 18.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 122.6% | 28.9% |
| Debt to equity | 3.72 | 2.35 |
Performance
KMB leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | KMB | WM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 9.1% | 6.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.5% | 10.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.5% | -2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.1% | 3.7% |
| Year to date | 7.4% | 5.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -10.1% | 7.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | KMB | WM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.3 | 80.7 |
| ADX (14) | 26.1 | 24.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 3.7% | 6.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.6% | 3.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 19.5% |
Risk
WM is the more resilient| Metric | KMB | WM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.08 | -0.42 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.4 | 0.27 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.46 | 0.4 |
| Max drawdown | -23.4% | -18.1% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -6% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.1% | 20.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.7% | -1.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KMB or WM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KMB is the stronger of the two as of Oct 22, 2026, scoring 59 against WM's 58. The edge comes from quality. WM is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 WM the better buy right now?
KMB carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 22, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor KMB over WM?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. KMB leads Quality by 12 points; WM leads Momentum by 5 points; WM leads Risk Resilience by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KMB or WM?
Analyst price targets imply +8.6% upside for KMB and +2.1% for WM, so the Street currently favors KMB. 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 WM?
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, KMB or WM?
WM 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 WM?
WM on the Momentum factor, by 5 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 WM?
WM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WM on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 WM?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 36.7% vs 35%; operating margin 12.4% vs 18.5%; ttm roe 122.6% vs 28.9%. KMB leads on two measures and WM 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 KMB's lead over WM getting stronger or weaker?
KMB lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 1 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when KMB moved ahead of WM.
What would change the KMB vs WM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WM closes the Quality gap — currently 12 points behind, the largest single contributor to KMB's edge; WM's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KMB's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate KMB's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about KMB and WM?
KMB: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. WM: 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 KMB is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On WM it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare KMB and WM 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.