KO vs MNST Stock Comparison
MNST currently leads KO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 61. The clearest difference is risk resilience.
What is the main difference between KO and MNST?
MNST leads the current stock comparison as Monster Beverage Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Coca-Cola Company vs Monster Beverage Corporation
MNST leads
MNST leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from KO.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MNST, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Coca-Cola Company
Monster Beverage Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNST over KO, 62 versus 61 as of Oct 21, 2026. MNST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience. MNST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MNST lead: Reversed — KO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 1.
Compare The Coca-Cola Company and Monster Beverage Corporation 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 KO and MNST 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.
- Risk Resilience57 vs 72MNST +15
- Value27 vs 24Even
- Momentum81 vs 80Even
- Quality80 vs 80Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MNST. MNST’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
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 7 active signals are unchanged.
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 8 active signals are unchanged.
MNST's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — KO and MNST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNST (Monster Beverage Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience.
KO (The Coca-Cola Company): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals.
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
MNSTMNST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
KOKO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MNSTMNST on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
MNSTMNST 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 | KO | MNST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.7% | +110.9% | MNST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.5% | +15.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST. 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 | 61 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | KOon balance | revenue growth 7.3% vs 7.8%; EPS growth 13.2% vs 3.4%; TTM ROE 43% vs 25%; gross margin 61.9% vs 55.5%; operating margin 29.6% vs 29.2% — KO takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 27 vs 24 |
| Technicals | KO | Price vs 50-day 4.5% vs 4.1%; vs 200-day 15.1% vs 10% |
| Risk Resilience | MNST | Risk Resilience 57 vs 72 |
| Analyst expectations | MNST | Target upside 0.7% vs 110.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of KO and MNST 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 2 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 MNST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20MNST lead: Reversed — KO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 1.
- Today
- MNST +1
- 61 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 61 vs 61
- 30 sessions ago
- KO +2
- 52 vs 50
- 90 sessions ago
- KO +5
- 54 vs 49
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 9 when KO moved ahead of MNST.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only KO
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.1%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MNST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
MNST 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 -0.87%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.87%, 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.
- 1KO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge.
- 2KO's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3MNST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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
KO leads on balance| Metric | KO | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.3% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 13.2% | 3.4% |
| Gross margin | 61.9% | 55.5% |
| Operating margin | 29.6% | 29.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 43% | 25% |
| Debt to equity | 1.2 | 0 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | KO | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.8% | 8.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.5% | 6.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.7% | -1.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 23.8% | 25% |
| Year to date | 31.6% | 22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38.3% | 34.1% |
Technicals
KO has the stronger structure| Metric | KO | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 83.7 | 85.3 |
| ADX (14) | 25.1 | 23.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.5% | 4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 15.1% | 10% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16% | 24.7% |
Risk
MNST is the more resilient| Metric | KO | MNST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.26 | 0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.53 | 1.09 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.9 | 1.81 |
| Max drawdown | -8.5% | -17.7% |
| Current drawdown | -0.4% | -5.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 19.1% | 26.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -1.6% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, KO or MNST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against KO's 61. The edge comes from 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 KO or MNST the better buy right now?
MNST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 MNST over KO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNST leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, KO or MNST?
Analyst price targets imply +0.7% upside for KO and +110.9% for MNST, so the Street currently favors MNST. 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, KO or MNST?
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, KO or MNST?
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, KO or MNST?
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, KO or MNST?
MNST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNST on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 KO more profitable than MNST?
KO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 61.9% vs 55.5%; operating margin 29.6% vs 29.2%; ttm roe 43% vs 25%.
Is MNST's lead over KO getting stronger or weaker?
MNST lead: Reversed — KO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-09, when KO moved ahead of MNST.
What would change the KO vs MNST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: KO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge; KO's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; MNST's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 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 KO and MNST?
KO: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. MNST: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 KO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MNST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare KO and MNST 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.