MO vs NWL Stock Comparison
MO currently leads NWL in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 55 vs 41. The clearest difference is quality, while NWL has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MO and NWL?
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
Altria Group, Inc. vs Newell Brands Inc.
MO leads
MO leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NWL on target upside.
Competitive: 3 of 6 evidence groups support MO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Altria Group, Inc.
Newell Brands Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MO over NWL, 55 versus 41 as of Oct 31, 2026. MO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while NWL holds the stronger value profile. MO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NWL. 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 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Altria Group, Inc. 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 MO 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.
- Quality60 vs 16MO +44
- Momentum67 vs 37MO +30
- Value47 vs 68NWL +21
- Risk Resilience42 vs 41Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor MO. MO’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
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
MO's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MO and NWL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MO (Altria Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42.6% against 22.3%.
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
NWLNWL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NWLNWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
MOMO on the Momentum factor, by 30 points.
Lower downside
MOMO carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
NWLNWL 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 NWL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | MO | NWL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -16.2% | +15.3% | NWL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +125.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 5 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MO | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.12% | -21.17% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.400 | $0.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.160 | $0.280 |
| Years increased | 5 | 0 |
| No cut in window | Yes | No (2) |
| Cohort rank | #283 | not ranked |
MO grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 4.12% a year against NWL's -21.17%. MO 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
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 | 55 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 28.7%; EPS growth 5.4% vs 4.2%; TTM ROE -265.2% vs -8.9%; gross margin 71% vs 35.5%; operating margin 55.9% vs 8.1% — MO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 47 vs 68 |
| Technicals | MO | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs -9.3%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 7.9% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 42 vs 41 |
| Analyst expectations | NWL | Target upside -16.2% vs 15.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MO and NWL 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 wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 MO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MO +14
- 55 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- MO +15
- 58 vs 43
- 30 sessions ago
- MO +9
- 54 vs 45
- 90 sessions ago
- MO +5
- 51 vs 46
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when MO 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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MO
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NWL
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.45%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
MO 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 +1.67%, 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge.
- 2NWL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3MO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
MO leads on balance| Metric | MO | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 28.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 4.2% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 35.5% |
| Operating margin | 55.9% | 8.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -265.2% | -8.9% |
| Debt to equity | -9.21 | 2.26 |
Performance
MO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MO | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -6.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.4% | -1.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.4% | 1.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7% | 32.2% |
| Year to date | 26.6% | 40.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 4.6% |
Technicals
MO has the stronger structure| Metric | MO | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.7 | 36 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 11.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | -9.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 7.9% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.3% | 42.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | MO | NWL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.52 | 1.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.31 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 0.41 |
| Max drawdown | -14.6% | -37.8% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -18.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 59.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MO or NWL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MO is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 55 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 MO or NWL the better buy right now?
MO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 NWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MO leads Quality by 44 points; MO leads Momentum by 30 points; NWL leads Value by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MO or NWL?
Analyst price targets imply -16.2% upside for MO and +15.3% for NWL, so the Street currently favors NWL. 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, MO or NWL?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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, MO 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, MO or NWL?
MO on the Momentum factor, by 30 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, MO or NWL?
MO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MO 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 MO more profitable than NWL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71% vs 35.5%; operating margin 55.9% vs 8.1%; ttm roe -265.2% vs -8.9%. MO leads on two measures and NWL 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 MO's lead over NWL getting stronger or weaker?
MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 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 2026-08-20, when MO moved ahead of NWL.
What would change the MO 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 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge; NWL's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; MO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 MO and NWL?
MO: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, 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 MO is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On NWL it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MO 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.