MNST vs PEP Stock Comparison
Compare MNST and PEP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MNST and PEP?
MNST leads the current stock comparison as Monster Beverage Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Monster Beverage Corporation vs PepsiCo, Inc.
MNST leads
MNST leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support MNST, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Monster Beverage Corporation
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MNST over PEP, 48 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. MNST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while PEP holds the stronger value profile. 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Monster Beverage Corporation and PepsiCo, 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 MNST and PEP 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.
- Value24 vs 44PEP +20
- Quality80 vs 64MNST +16
- Risk Resilience62 vs 51MNST +11
- Momentum29 vs 26Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor MNST. MNST’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; PEP keeps a meaningful value 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: Risk Resilience +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
MNST's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MNST and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MNST (Monster Beverage Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
PEP (PepsiCo, 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
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
MNSTMNST on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +124.3% | +14.7% | MNST has more room |
| Target dispersion | +19.5% | +31.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 11 | 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 | 48 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | PEPon balance | revenue growth 7.8% vs 24.4%; EPS growth 3.4% vs 28.2%; TTM ROE 25% vs 50.4%; gross margin 55.5% vs 54%; operating margin 29.2% vs 15% — PEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 24 vs 44 |
| Technicals | PEP | Price vs 50-day -41.3% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day -32.9% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | MNST | Risk Resilience 62 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | MNST | Target upside 124.3% vs 14.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MNST and PEP 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 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MNST +1
- 48 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- MNST +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- MNST +3
- 59 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- MNST +15
- 65 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when MNST moved ahead of PEP.
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.
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (15.09%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.49%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (2.1%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 +0.72%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.24%, 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.
- 1PEP closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge.
- 2PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 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
PEP leads on balance| Metric | MNST | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 7.8% | 24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 3.4% | 28.2% |
| Gross margin | 55.5% | 54% |
| Operating margin | 29.2% | 15% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 25% | 50.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 2.41 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | MNST | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.3% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -51.2% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.2% | -14.7% |
| Year to date | 12.4% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 36.8% | -3.6% |
Technicals
PEP has the stronger structure| Metric | MNST | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.8 | 33.5 |
| ADX (14) | 60.7 | 10.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -41.3% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -32.9% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.8% | 17.9% |
Risk
MNST is the more resilient| Metric | MNST | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.64 | -0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.7 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.05 | -0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -57.1% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -56.9% | -19.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 114.2% | 21.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MNST or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MNST is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against PEP's 47. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. PEP 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 PEP the better buy right now?
MNST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 PEP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PEP leads Value by 20 points; MNST leads Quality by 16 points; MNST leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MNST or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +124.3% upside for MNST and +14.7% for PEP, 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 PEP?
PEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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 PEP?
PEP 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 PEP?
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, MNST or PEP?
MNST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MNST on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 PEP?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 55.5% vs 54%; operating margin 29.2% vs 15%; ttm roe 25% vs 50.4%. MNST leads on two measures and PEP on one measure, 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 PEP getting stronger or weaker?
MNST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when MNST moved ahead of PEP.
What would change the MNST vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PEP closes the Quality gap — currently 16 points behind, the largest single contributor to MNST's edge; PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; 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 PEP?
MNST: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. PEP: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on MNST is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare MNST and PEP 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.