MO vs PG Stock Comparison
PG currently leads MO in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 55. The clearest difference is quality, while MO has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between MO and PG?
PG leads the current stock comparison as The Procter & Gamble Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Altria Group, Inc. vs The Procter & Gamble Company
PG leads
PG leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PG, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Altria Group, Inc.
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PG over MO, 56 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. PG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while MO holds the stronger value profile. PG also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Altria Group, Inc. and The Procter & Gamble Company 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 PG 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.
- Value47 vs 31MO +16
- Quality60 vs 71PG +11
- Risk Resilience42 vs 49PG +7
- Momentum67 vs 73PG +6
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PG. PG’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; 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 -8
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
PG's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — MO and PG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
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
PGPG on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PGPG on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
MOMO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
PGPG on the Momentum factor, by 6 points.
Lower downside
PGPG on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
PGPG 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 | PG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -16.2% | +0.6% | PG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +32.1% | +29.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | MO | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 4.12% | 6.02% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.400 | $3.118 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.160 | $4.177 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #283 | #210 |
PG grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.02% a year against MO's 4.12%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG. 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 | 55 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | MOon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 9.8%; EPS growth 5.4% vs 57.5%; TTM ROE -265.2% vs 29.5%; gross margin 71% vs 49.8%; operating margin 55.9% vs 22.6% — MO takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | MO | Value 47 vs 31 |
| Technicals | MO | Price vs 50-day 11.4% vs 8.2%; vs 200-day 6.2% vs 6.4% |
| Risk Resilience | PG | Risk Resilience 42 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | PG | Target upside -16.2% vs 0.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of MO and PG 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 lead has been steady session to session. (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 PG.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28PG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PG +1
- 55 vs 56
- 7 sessions ago
- PG +2
- 58 vs 60
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +2
- 54 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- MO +1
- 51 vs 50
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 16 when PG 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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only MO
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only PG
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, 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 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 +0.61%, 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.
- 1MO closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge.
- 2MO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PG'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 | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 9.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 5.4% | 57.5% |
| Gross margin | 71% | 49.8% |
| Operating margin | 55.9% | 22.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -265.2% | 29.5% |
| Debt to equity | -9.21 | 0.71 |
Performance
PG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | MO | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.1% | 0.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 8.4% | 8.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.4% | 9.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7% | 8.1% |
| Year to date | 26.6% | 10.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 12.9% | 3.8% |
Technicals
MO has the stronger structure| Metric | MO | PG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 56.7 | 62.4 |
| ADX (14) | 22 | 35.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.4% | 8.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.2% | 6.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.3% | 27.7% |
Risk
PG is the more resilient| Metric | MO | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.52 | -0.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.53 | 0.13 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.65 | 0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -14.6% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -4% | -5.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.5% | 20.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, MO or PG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PG is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against MO's 55. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 MO or PG the better buy right now?
PG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 PG over MO?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. MO leads Value by 16 points; PG leads Quality by 11 points; PG leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, MO or PG?
Analyst price targets imply -16.2% upside for MO and +0.6% for PG, so the Street currently favors PG. 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 PG?
MO is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. MO on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 PG?
PG 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 PG?
PG 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, MO or PG?
PG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PG on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 PG?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71% vs 49.8%; operating margin 55.9% vs 22.6%; ttm roe -265.2% vs 29.5%. MO leads on two measures and PG 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 PG's lead over MO getting stronger or weaker?
PG lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-16, when PG moved ahead of MO.
What would change the MO vs PG verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MO closes the Quality gap — currently 11 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge; MO generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PG'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 PG?
MO: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PG: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 PG it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare MO and PG 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.