OTLY vs PEP Stock Comparison
Compare OTLY and PEP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between OTLY and PEP?
PEP leads the current stock comparison as PepsiCo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Oatly Group AB vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PEP, and its lead is narrowing.
Oatly Group AB
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over OTLY, 47 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while OTLY holds the stronger value profile. PEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. PEP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Oatly Group AB 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 OTLY 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.
- Risk Resilience12 vs 51PEP +39
- Quality45 vs 64PEP +19
- Value63 vs 44OTLY +19
- Momentum34 vs 26OTLY +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; 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.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
PEP's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — OTLY and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
OTLY (Oatly Group AB): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% 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
OTLYOTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
OTLYOTLY on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 | OTLY | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.1% | +14.7% | PEP has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.6% | +31.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 11 | 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 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 | PEP | 43 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | PEP | revenue growth 5.2% vs 24.4%; EPS growth -150% vs 28.2%; TTM ROE -31.3% vs 50.4%; gross margin 33% vs 54%; operating margin -6% vs 15% |
| Valuation | OTLY | Value 63 vs 44 |
| Technicals | OTLY | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -2.3%; vs 200-day 10.3% vs -8.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PEP | Risk Resilience 12 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | PEP | Target upside 1.1% vs 14.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OTLY 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 4 points. (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 8 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PEP +4
- 43 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- OTLY +1
- 51 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- PEP +8
- 48 vs 56
- 90 sessions ago
- Level
- 50 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 4 when OTLY moved ahead of PEP.
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 / 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
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
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 +1.44%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1OTLY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-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 | OTLY | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | 24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -150% | 28.2% |
| Gross margin | 33% | 54% |
| Operating margin | -6% | 15% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.3% | 50.4% |
| Debt to equity | -22.44 | 2.41 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | OTLY | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14% | -2.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -1.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 51.9% | -5.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.7% | -14.7% |
| Year to date | 17.2% | -4.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.5% | -3.6% |
Technicals
OTLY has the stronger structure| Metric | OTLY | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 33.5 |
| ADX (14) | 30.6 | 10.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -2.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.3% | -8.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 17.9% |
Risk
PEP is the more resilient| Metric | OTLY | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | -0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.28 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.47 | -0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -55.6% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -30.7% | -19.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 63% | 21.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OTLY or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against OTLY's 43. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. 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 OTLY or PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PEP over OTLY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PEP leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; PEP leads Quality by 19 points; OTLY leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OTLY or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +1.1% upside for OTLY 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, OTLY or PEP?
OTLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, OTLY 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, OTLY or PEP?
OTLY on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, OTLY or PEP?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 OTLY more profitable than PEP?
PEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33% vs 54%; operating margin -6% vs 15%; ttm roe -31.3% vs 50.4%.
Is PEP's lead over OTLY getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 4 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-04, when OTLY moved ahead of PEP.
What would change the OTLY vs PEP 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 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate PEP's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about OTLY and PEP?
OTLY: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 OTLY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare OTLY 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.