MDLZ vs MO Stock Comparison
Compare MDLZ and MO across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MDLZ and MO?
MO leads the current stock comparison as Altria Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Mondelez International, Inc. vs Altria Group, Inc.
MO leads
MO leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MDLZ on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MO, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Mondelez International, Inc.
Altria Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MO over MDLZ, 52 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. MO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while MDLZ holds the stronger risk resilience profile. MO also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MDLZ. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Mondelez International, Inc. and Altria Group, Inc. 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 MDLZ and MO 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.
- Quality45 vs 60MO +15
- Value37 vs 48MO +11
- Risk Resilience50 vs 40MDLZ +10
- Momentum51 vs 56MO +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MO. MO’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; MDLZ keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MDLZ and MO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MO (Altria Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
MDLZ (Mondelez International, Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, technicals, analyst expectations.
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
MOMO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
MDLZMDLZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
MOMO on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
MDLZMDLZ on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
MDLZMDLZ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors MO, analyst targets favor MDLZ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MDLZ | MO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.1% | +2.9% | MDLZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +13% | +29.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 7 | 6 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | MO | 45 vs 52 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | revenue growth -7.2% vs 12.6%; EPS growth 179.1% vs 5.4%; TTM ROE 13.5% vs -265.2%; gross margin 31.1% vs 71%; operating margin 11.4% vs 55.9% — MO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MO | Value 37 vs 48 |
| Technicals | MDLZ | Price vs 50-day 1.2% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 5.5% vs 3.4% |
| Risk Resilience | MDLZ | Risk Resilience 50 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | MDLZ | Target upside 11.1% vs 2.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MDLZ and MO 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 7 points.
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 MO.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MO +7
- 45 vs 52
- 7 sessions ago
- MO +12
- 43 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- MO +15
- 42 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when MO moved ahead of MDLZ.
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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.20%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.51%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
MDLZ is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.05%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.28%, 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.
- 1MDLZ closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge.
- 2MDLZ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
MO leads on balance| Metric | MDLZ | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -7.2% | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 179.1% | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 31.1% | 71% |
| Operating margin | 11.4% | 55.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 13.5% | -265.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.83 | -9.21 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MDLZ | MO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 6.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.7% | -5.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.8% | 3.7% |
| Year to date | 16.1% | 19.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 0.9% | 4.6% |
Technicals
MDLZ has the stronger structure| Metric | MDLZ | MO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 37.9 | 58.4 |
| ADX (14) | 9.7 | 11.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.2% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.5% | 3.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.5% | 24.2% |
Risk
MDLZ is the more resilient| Metric | MDLZ | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.25 | -0.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.06 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.09 | 0.16 |
| Max drawdown | -20% | -17.9% |
| Current drawdown | -3.9% | -8.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.4% | 26.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MDLZ or MO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against MDLZ's 45. The edge comes from quality and value. MDLZ is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 MO the better buy right now?
MO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 3 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 MO over MDLZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MO leads Quality by 15 points; MO leads Value by 11 points; MDLZ leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MDLZ or MO?
Analyst price targets imply +11.1% upside for MDLZ and +2.9% for MO, so the Street currently favors MDLZ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors MO. 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, MDLZ or MO?
MO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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 MO?
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 MO?
MO 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, MDLZ or MO?
MDLZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MDLZ on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 MDLZ more profitable than MO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 31.1% vs 71%; operating margin 11.4% vs 55.9%; ttm roe 13.5% vs -265.2%. MDLZ leads on one measure and MO 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 MO's lead over MDLZ getting stronger or weaker?
MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 7 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when MO moved ahead of MDLZ.
What would change the MDLZ vs MO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MDLZ closes the Quality gap — currently 15 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge; MDLZ's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MO's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 MDLZ and MO?
MDLZ: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. MO: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 MO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MDLZ and MO 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.