MNST vs MO Stock Comparison
MNST currently leads MO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 60 vs 55. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while MO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MNST and MO?
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
Monster Beverage Corporation vs Altria Group, Inc.
MNST leads
MNST leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from MO.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MNST, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Monster Beverage Corporation
Altria Group, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNST over MO, 60 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. MNST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while MO holds the stronger value profile. MNST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MNST today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. MNST lead: Reversed — MO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 5.
Compare Monster Beverage Corporation and Altria Group, 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 MNST 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.
- Risk Resilience73 vs 42MNST +31
- Value24 vs 47MO +23
- Quality80 vs 60MNST +20
- Momentum73 vs 67MNST +6
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MNST. MNST’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; MO 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 -2
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
MNST's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MNST and MO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNST (Monster Beverage Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
MO (Altria Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
MOMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
MNSTMNST on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
MNSTMNST on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 | MNST | MO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +92.5% | -16.2% | MNST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +59.8% | +32.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | MNST | 60 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | revenue growth 7.8% vs 12.6%; EPS growth 3.4% vs 5.4%; TTM ROE 25% vs -265.2%; gross margin 55.5% vs 71%; operating margin 29.2% vs 55.9% — MO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MO | Value 24 vs 47 |
| Technicals | MO | Price vs 50-day 5.7% vs 11.4%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 6.2% |
| Risk Resilience | MNST | Risk Resilience 73 vs 42 |
| Analyst expectations | MNST | Target upside 92.5% vs -16.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MNST and MO 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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'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 MNST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MNST lead: Reversed — MO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 5.
- Today
- MNST +5
- 60 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- MNST +3
- 61 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- MO +2
- 52 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- MNST +7
- 58 vs 51
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 15 when MNST moved ahead of MO.
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 / 1 neutral
Only MNST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
MO 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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.14%, AIQ -1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.67%, 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.
- 1MO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge.
- 2MO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3MNST'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 | MNST | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.8% | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.4% | 5.4% |
| Gross margin | 55.5% | 71% |
| Operating margin | 29.2% | 55.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25% | -265.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | -9.21 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MNST | MO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.1% | -1.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.7% | 8.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -6.5% | 7.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 18.8% | 7% |
| Year to date | 19.1% | 26.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 31% | 12.9% |
Technicals
MO has the stronger structure| Metric | MNST | MO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.6 | 56.7 |
| ADX (14) | 23.7 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 5.7% | 11.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 6.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.7% | 22.3% |
Risk
MNST is the more resilient| Metric | MNST | MO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.29 | -0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.02 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.69 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -17.7% | -14.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -4% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.8% | 26.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MNST or MO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 60 against MO's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. MO 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 MNST or MO the better buy right now?
MNST 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MNST over MO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MNST leads Risk Resilience by 31 points; MO leads Value by 23 points; MNST leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MNST or MO?
Analyst price targets imply +92.5% upside for MNST and -16.2% for MO, 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, MNST or MO?
MO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, MNST or MO?
MO 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, MNST or MO?
MNST 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, MNST or MO?
MNST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNST on Risk Resilience, by 31 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 MNST more profitable than MO?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 55.5% vs 71%; operating margin 29.2% vs 55.9%; ttm roe 25% vs -265.2%. MNST 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 MNST's lead over MO getting stronger or weaker?
MNST lead: Reversed — MO led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; MNST now leads by 5. 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 2026-10-15, when MNST moved ahead of MO.
What would change the MNST vs MO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MO closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge; MO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; MNST'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 MNST and MO?
MNST: 4 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. MO: 3 bullish / 1 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 MNST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On MO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MNST 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.