MO vs OTLY Stock Comparison
Compare MO and OTLY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between MO and OTLY?
MO leads the current stock comparison as Altria Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Altria Group, Inc. vs Oatly Group AB
MO leads
MO leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support MO, its lead is widening, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Altria Group, Inc.
Oatly Group AB
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors MO over OTLY, 52 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. MO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while OTLY holds the stronger value profile. MO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor MO today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Altria Group, Inc. and Oatly Group AB 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 MO and OTLY 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 Resilience40 vs 12MO +28
- Momentum56 vs 34MO +22
- Quality60 vs 45MO +15
- Value48 vs 63OTLY +15
4 of 6 evidence groups favor MO. MO’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; OTLY 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.
No factor moved materially.
New signals
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
MO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MO and OTLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
MO (Altria Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
OTLY (Oatly Group AB): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 24.2%.
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
MOMO on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
OTLYOTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 points.
Momentum
MOMO on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
MOMO on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
MOMO 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 | MO | OTLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.9% | +1.1% | MO has more room |
| Target dispersion | +29.6% | +15.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 2 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 52 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 5.2%; EPS growth 5.4% vs -150%; TTM ROE -265.2% vs -31.3%; gross margin 71% vs 33%; operating margin 55.9% vs -6% — MO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | OTLY | Value 48 vs 63 |
| Technicals | OTLY | Price vs 50-day -0.8% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 3.4% vs 10.3% |
| Risk Resilience | MO | Risk Resilience 40 vs 12 |
| Analyst expectations | MO | Target upside 2.9% vs 1.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MO and OTLY and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 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 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- MO +9
- 52 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- MO +4
- 55 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- MO +7
- 57 vs 50
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when OTLY 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.
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
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.28%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
OTLY 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 +0.28%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.44%, 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.
- 1OTLY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge.
- 2OTLY'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 | MO | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 5.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.4% | -150% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 33% |
| Operating margin | 55.9% | -6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -265.2% | -31.3% |
| Debt to equity | -9.21 | -22.44 |
Performance
MO leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MO | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | -14% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 6.8% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.9% | 51.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.7% | 17.7% |
| Year to date | 19.3% | 17.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 4.6% | -28.5% |
Technicals
OTLY has the stronger structure| Metric | MO | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 58.4 | 34.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.2 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.8% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.4% | 10.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 54.2% |
Risk
MO is the more resilient| Metric | MO | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.53 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.16 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -17.9% | -55.6% |
| Current drawdown | -8.2% | -30.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.4% | 63% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -5.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MO or OTLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, MO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 52 against OTLY's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. OTLY 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 OTLY the better buy right now?
MO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor MO over OTLY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MO leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; MO leads Momentum by 22 points; MO leads Quality by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MO or OTLY?
Analyst price targets imply +2.9% upside for MO and +1.1% for OTLY, so the Street currently favors MO. 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, MO or OTLY?
OTLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 15 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 OTLY?
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, MO or OTLY?
MO on the Momentum factor, by 22 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 OTLY?
MO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. MO on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 MO more profitable than OTLY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71% vs 33%; operating margin 55.9% vs -6%; ttm roe -265.2% vs -31.3%. MO leads on two measures and OTLY 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 OTLY getting stronger or weaker?
MO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 9 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when OTLY moved ahead of MO.
What would change the MO vs OTLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OTLY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to MO's edge; OTLY'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 MO and OTLY?
MO: 3 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral. OTLY: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 OTLY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MO and OTLY 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.