NWL vs OTLY Stock Comparison
Compare NWL and OTLY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NWL and OTLY?
NWL leads the current stock comparison as Newell Brands Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Newell Brands Inc. vs Oatly Group AB
NWL leads
NWL leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support NWL, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Newell Brands Inc.
Oatly Group AB
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors NWL over OTLY, 46 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. NWL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while OTLY holds the stronger quality profile. NWL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NWL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. NWL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Newell Brands 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 NWL 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.
- Quality16 vs 45OTLY +29
- Momentum63 vs 34NWL +29
- Risk Resilience36 vs 12NWL +24
- Value68 vs 63NWL +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor NWL. NWL’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; OTLY keeps a meaningful quality 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: Momentum +4
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
NWL's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NWL and OTLY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
OTLY (Oatly Group AB): the counter-case, on quality.
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
NWLNWL 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 5 points.
Momentum
NWLNWL on the Momentum factor, by 29 points.
Lower downside
NWLNWL on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.
Analyst upside
NWLNWL 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 | NWL | OTLY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.2% | +1.1% | NWL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +125.4% | +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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor NWL. 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 | 46 vs 43 |
| Fundamentals | NWL | revenue growth 28.7% vs 5.2%; EPS growth 4.2% vs -150%; TTM ROE -8.9% vs -31.3%; gross margin 35.5% vs 33%; operating margin 8.1% vs -6% |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 68 vs 63 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -1.2%; vs 200-day 29.8% vs 10.3% |
| Risk Resilience | NWL | Risk Resilience 36 vs 12 |
| Analyst expectations | NWL | Target upside 2.2% vs 1.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NWL and OTLY 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 NWL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10NWL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- NWL +3
- 46 vs 43
- 7 sessions ago
- OTLY +5
- 46 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- NWL +2
- 50 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when NWL moved ahead of OTLY.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (26.60%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long 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
NWL 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, AIQ +1 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 Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWL's edge.
- 2OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3NWL'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
NWL leads on balance| Metric | NWL | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.7% | 5.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | -150% |
| Gross margin | 35.5% | 33% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | -6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.9% | -31.3% |
| Debt to equity | 2.26 | -22.44 |
Performance
NWL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | NWL | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -14% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -4.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31% | 51.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.8% | 17.7% |
| Year to date | 57.8% | 17.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.3% | -28.5% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | NWL | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.9 | 34.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 30.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -1.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.8% | 10.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.6% | 54.2% |
Risk
NWL is the more resilient| Metric | NWL | OTLY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | 1.12 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -0.47 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -55.6% |
| Current drawdown | -7.7% | -30.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.3% | 63% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -5.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NWL or OTLY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, NWL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 46 against OTLY's 43. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. OTLY is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 NWL or OTLY the better buy right now?
NWL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor NWL over OTLY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. OTLY leads Quality by 29 points; NWL leads Momentum by 29 points; NWL leads Risk Resilience by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NWL or OTLY?
Analyst price targets imply +2.2% upside for NWL and +1.1% for OTLY, so the Street currently favors NWL. 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, NWL or OTLY?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 5 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, NWL or OTLY?
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, NWL or OTLY?
NWL on the Momentum factor, by 29 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, NWL or OTLY?
NWL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. NWL on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 NWL more profitable than OTLY?
NWL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.5% vs 33%; operating margin 8.1% vs -6%; ttm roe -8.9% vs -31.3%.
Is NWL's lead over OTLY getting stronger or weaker?
NWL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 NWL moved ahead of OTLY.
What would change the NWL vs OTLY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: OTLY closes the Momentum gap — currently 29 points behind, the largest single contributor to NWL's edge; OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; NWL'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 NWL and OTLY?
NWL: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. 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 NWL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On OTLY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare NWL 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.