MKC vs NWL Stock Comparison
MKC currently leads NWL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while NWL has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MKC and NWL?
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
McCormick & Company, Incorporated vs Newell Brands Inc.
MKC leads
MKC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MKC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
McCormick & Company, Incorporated
Newell Brands Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MKC over NWL, 49 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. MKC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while NWL holds the stronger value profile. MKC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MKC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. MKC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare McCormick & Company, Incorporated and Newell Brands 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 MKC and NWL 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.
- Quality62 vs 16MKC +46
- Value43 vs 68NWL +25
- Momentum43 vs 37MKC +6
- Risk Resilience45 vs 41MKC +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MKC. MKC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; NWL keeps a meaningful value 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 -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
MKC's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MKC and NWL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MKC (McCormick & Company, Incorporated): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, 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
NWLNWL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NWLNWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
MKCMKC on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
MKCMKC on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
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 | MKC | NWL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +16.7% | +15.3% | MKC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.1% | +125.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MKC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.58% | -21.17% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $1.270 | $0.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.830 | $0.280 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #160 | not ranked |
MKC grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.58% a year against NWL's -21.17%. MKC never reduced its regular dividend in the window; NWL did in 2 years.
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
4 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 | MKC | 49 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | MKCon balance | revenue growth 3.3% vs 28.7%; EPS growth -85.2% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE 25.6% vs -8.9%; gross margin 38.6% vs 35.5%; operating margin 15.3% vs 8.1% — MKC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 43 vs 68 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day -4.3% vs -9.3%; vs 200-day -14% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | MKC | Risk Resilience 45 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | MKC | Target upside 16.7% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MKC and NWL 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MKC +8
- 49 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- MKC +9
- 52 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 45 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MKC +10
- 56 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 11 when MKC moved ahead of NWL.
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.
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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NWL
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (18.27%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.45%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
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 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.05%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.97%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge.
- 2NWL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
MKC leads on balance| Metric | MKC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.3% | 28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -85.2% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 38.6% | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | 8.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25.6% | -8.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.71 | 2.26 |
Performance
NWL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MKC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -0.6% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.7% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -9.6% | 1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -8.9% | 32.2% |
| Year to date | -32.4% | 40.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -31.1% | 4.6% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | MKC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.5 | 36 |
| ADX (14) | 23.2 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -4.3% | -9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 38.3% | 42.6% |
Risk
MKC is the more resilient| Metric | MKC | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.34 | 1.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.13 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.66 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -38.4% | -37.8% |
| Current drawdown | -35.7% | -18.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.2% | 59.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MKC or NWL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MKC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 49 against NWL's 41. The edge comes from quality and momentum. NWL 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 MKC or NWL the better buy right now?
MKC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MKC over NWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MKC leads Quality by 46 points; NWL leads Value by 25 points; MKC leads Momentum by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MKC or NWL?
Analyst price targets imply +16.7% upside for MKC and +15.3% for NWL, 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, MKC or NWL?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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, MKC or NWL?
NWL 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, MKC or NWL?
MKC on the Momentum factor, by 6 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, MKC or NWL?
MKC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MKC 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 MKC more profitable than NWL?
MKC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 38.6% vs 35.5%; operating margin 15.3% vs 8.1%; ttm roe 25.6% vs -8.9%.
Is MKC's lead over NWL getting stronger or weaker?
MKC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 8 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-11, when MKC moved ahead of NWL.
What would change the MKC vs NWL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 46 points behind, the largest single contributor to MKC's edge; NWL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MKC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 MKC and NWL?
MKC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NWL: 2 bullish / 1 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 MKC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On NWL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MKC and NWL 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.