MDLZ vs MKC Stock Comparison
MKC currently leads MDLZ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 48. The clearest difference is quality, while MDLZ has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between MDLZ and MKC?
MKC leads the current stock comparison as McCormick & Company, Incorporated, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mondelez International, Inc. vs McCormick & Company, Incorporated
MKC leads
MKC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 5 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MKC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Mondelez International, Inc.
McCormick & Company, Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MKC over MDLZ, 49 versus 48 as of Oct 31, 2026. MKC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MDLZ holds the stronger momentum profile. MKC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MKC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mondelez International, Inc. and McCormick & Company, Incorporated 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 MDLZ and MKC 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.
- Momentum66 vs 43MDLZ +23
- Quality45 vs 62MKC +17
- Value36 vs 43MKC +7
- Risk Resilience48 vs 45Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MKC. MKC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MDLZ keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
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 -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
MKC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MDLZ and MKC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MKC (McCormick & Company, Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MDLZ (Mondelez International, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, 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
MKCMKC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MDLZMDLZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MKCMKC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
MDLZMDLZ on the Momentum factor, by 23 points.
Lower downside
MDLZMDLZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
MKCMKC 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 | MDLZ | MKC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.4% | +16.7% | MKC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +8.4% | +38.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MDLZ | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 10.08% | 7.58% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.200 | $1.270 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.940 | $1.830 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #99 | #160 |
MDLZ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 10.08% a year against MKC's 7.58%. 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 MKC. 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 | 48 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | MKCon balance | revenue growth -7.2% vs 3.3%; EPS growth 179.1% vs -85.2%; TTM ROE 13.5% vs 25.6%; gross margin 31.1% vs 38.6%; operating margin 11.4% vs 15.3% — MKC takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MKC | Value 36 vs 43 |
| Technicals | MDLZ | Price vs 50-day 5.1% vs -4.3%; vs 200-day 2.6% vs -14% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 48 vs 45 |
| Analyst expectations | MKC | Target upside 10.4% vs 16.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MDLZ and MKC 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 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 MKC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MKC +1
- 48 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 52 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- MKC +5
- 40 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MKC +8
- 48 vs 56
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when MDLZ moved ahead of MKC.
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 / 0 bearish
Only MDLZ
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.47%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only MKC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.35%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
MKC 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.85%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1MDLZ closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge.
- 2MDLZ's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed.
- 3MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate MKC'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
MKC leads on balance| Metric | MDLZ | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.2% | 3.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 179.1% | -85.2% |
| Gross margin | 31.1% | 38.6% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | 15.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.5% | 25.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.83 | 0.71 |
Performance
MDLZ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | MDLZ | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.4% | -0.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7% | -0.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.9% | -9.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.4% | -8.9% |
| Year to date | 14.9% | -32.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1.8% | -31.1% |
Technicals
MDLZ has the stronger structure| Metric | MDLZ | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 54.8 | 50.5 |
| ADX (14) | 22.3 | 23.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.1% | -4.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.6% | -14% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.9% | 38.3% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MDLZ | MKC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.29 | -0.34 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | -1.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.11 | -1.66 |
| Max drawdown | -14.4% | -38.4% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -35.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.9% | 31.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MDLZ or MKC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MKC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against MDLZ's 48. The edge comes from quality and value. MDLZ 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 MDLZ or MKC the better buy right now?
MKC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MKC over MDLZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MDLZ leads Momentum by 23 points; MKC leads Quality by 17 points; MKC leads Value by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MDLZ or MKC?
Analyst price targets imply +10.4% upside for MDLZ and +16.7% for MKC, so the Street currently favors MKC. 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, MDLZ or MKC?
MKC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MKC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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, MDLZ or MKC?
MDLZ 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, MDLZ or MKC?
MDLZ on the Momentum factor, by 23 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, MDLZ or MKC?
MDLZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MDLZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is MDLZ more profitable than MKC?
MKC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 31.1% vs 38.6%; operating margin 11.4% vs 15.3%; ttm roe 13.5% vs 25.6%.
Is MKC's lead over MDLZ getting stronger or weaker?
MKC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 5 to 1 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when MDLZ moved ahead of MKC.
What would change the MDLZ vs MKC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MDLZ closes the Quality gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge; MDLZ's existing bullish trend signals translate into factor-score gains — the rules are already firing, but the scores have not yet followed; MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate MKC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about MDLZ and MKC?
MDLZ: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. MKC: 1 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 MDLZ is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MKC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MDLZ and MKC 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.