NWL vs PEP Stock Comparison
Compare NWL and PEP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between NWL and PEP?
PEP leads the current stock comparison as PepsiCo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Newell Brands Inc. vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support PEP, and its lead is narrowing.
Newell Brands Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over NWL, 47 versus 46 as of Sep 11, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while NWL holds the stronger momentum profile. PEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PEP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Newell Brands Inc. 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 NWL 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.
- Quality16 vs 64PEP +48
- Momentum63 vs 26NWL +37
- Value68 vs 44NWL +24
- Risk Resilience36 vs 51PEP +15
3 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; NWL keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +1
No new signals fired.
PEP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — NWL and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
NWL (Newell Brands Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 51.6% against 17.9%.
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
PEPPEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
NWLNWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
NWLNWL on the Momentum factor, by 37 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
PEPPEP 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 | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.2% | +14.7% | PEP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +125.4% | +31.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP. 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 47 |
| Fundamentals | PEPon balance | revenue growth 28.7% vs 24.4%; EPS growth 4.2% vs 28.2%; TTM ROE -8.9% vs 50.4%; gross margin 35.5% vs 54%; operating margin 8.1% vs 15% — PEP takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | NWL | Value 68 vs 44 |
| Technicals | NWL | Price vs 50-day 2.2% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day 29.8% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PEP | Risk Resilience 36 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | PEP | Target upside 2.2% vs 14.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of NWL 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 PEP.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PEP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PEP +1
- 46 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- PEP +4
- 46 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- PEP +6
- 50 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 18 when PEP 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 / 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
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
NWL 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.34%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PEP's advantage entirely.
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 | NWL | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 28.7% | 24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 4.2% | 28.2% |
| Gross margin | 35.5% | 54% |
| Operating margin | 8.1% | 15% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -8.9% | 50.4% |
| Debt to equity | 2.26 | 2.41 |
Performance
NWL leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | NWL | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.8% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 31% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 36.8% | -14.7% |
| Year to date | 57.8% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.3% | -3.6% |
Technicals
NWL has the stronger structure| Metric | NWL | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 51.9 | 33.5 |
| ADX (14) | 20.5 | 10.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.2% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 29.8% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 51.6% | 17.9% |
Risk
PEP is the more resilient| Metric | NWL | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.24 | -0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.14 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.19 | -0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -50% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -7.7% | -19.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 59.3% | 21.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.9% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, NWL or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against NWL's 46. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. NWL is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 PEP over NWL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PEP leads Quality by 48 points; NWL leads Momentum by 37 points; NWL leads Value by 24 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, NWL or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +2.2% upside for NWL and +14.7% for PEP, so the Street currently favors PEP. 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 PEP?
NWL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. NWL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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 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, NWL or PEP?
NWL on the Momentum factor, by 37 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 PEP?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 PEP?
PEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.5% vs 54%; operating margin 8.1% vs 15%; ttm roe -8.9% vs 50.4%.
Is PEP's lead over NWL getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-18, when PEP moved ahead of NWL.
What would change the NWL vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NWL closes the Quality gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; NWL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 1-point move would eliminate PEP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about NWL and PEP?
NWL: 3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. PEP: 0 bullish / 4 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 NWL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare NWL 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.