OTLY vs PG Stock Comparison
Compare OTLY and PG across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between OTLY and PG?
PG leads the current stock comparison as The Procter & Gamble Company, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Oatly Group AB vs The Procter & Gamble Company
PG leads
PG leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 3 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support PG, and its lead is widening.
Oatly Group AB
The Procter & Gamble Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PG over OTLY, 51 versus 43 as of Sep 11, 2026. PG's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while OTLY holds the stronger value profile. PG also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PG today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Oatly Group AB and The Procter & Gamble Company 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 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.
- Risk Resilience12 vs 55PG +43
- Quality45 vs 73PG +28
- Value63 vs 35OTLY +28
- Momentum34 vs 41PG +7
4 of 6 evidence groups favor PG. PG’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 +3
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
PG'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 PG both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PG (The Procter & Gamble Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
OTLY (Oatly Group AB): the counter-case, on value, valuation, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 54.2% against 14.3%.
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
OTLYOTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
PGPG on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
PGPG on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 | OTLY | PG | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.1% | +6.9% | PG has more room |
| Target dispersion | +15.6% | +19.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 2 | 9 | 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 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 | PG | 43 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | PG | EPS growth -150% vs -23.5%; TTM ROE -31.3% vs 29.8%; gross margin 33% vs 50.2%; operating margin -6% vs 22.7% |
| Valuation | OTLY | Value 63 vs 35 |
| Technicals | OTLY | Price vs 50-day -1.2% vs -0.8%; vs 200-day 10.3% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | PG | Risk Resilience 12 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | PG | Target upside 1.1% vs 6.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of OTLY and PG and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 8 points.
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 PG.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PG +8
- 43 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- PG +3
- 51 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- PG +3
- 48 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- PG +6
- 50 vs 56
The lead changed hands 12 times in this window, most recently on Sep 2 when PG 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 / 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 / 3 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.72%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.61%, 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.
- 1OTLY closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge.
- 2OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3PG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
PG leads on balance| Metric | OTLY | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.2% | -0.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -150% | -23.5% |
| Gross margin | 33% | 50.2% |
| Operating margin | -6% | 22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -31.3% | 29.8% |
| Debt to equity | -22.44 | 0.64 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | OTLY | PG |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -14% | -3.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.7% | -0.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 51.9% | -4.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 17.7% | -6.8% |
| Year to date | 17.2% | -0.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -28.5% | -10.1% |
Technicals
OTLY has the stronger structure| Metric | OTLY | PG |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 50 |
| ADX (14) | 30.6 | 8.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.2% | -0.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 10.3% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.2% | 14.3% |
Risk
PG is the more resilient| Metric | OTLY | PG |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.12 | -0.06 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.28 | -0.66 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.47 | -1.14 |
| Max drawdown | -55.6% | -16.1% |
| Current drawdown | -30.7% | -14.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 63% | 19.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5.4% | -1.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, OTLY or PG?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PG is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 51 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 PG the better buy right now?
PG carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PG over OTLY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. PG leads Risk Resilience by 43 points; PG leads Quality by 28 points; OTLY leads Value by 28 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, OTLY or PG?
Analyst price targets imply +1.1% upside for OTLY and +6.9% 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, OTLY or PG?
OTLY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. OTLY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 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, OTLY or PG?
PG on the Momentum factor, by 7 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 PG?
PG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PG on Risk Resilience, by 43 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 PG?
PG leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33% vs 50.2%; operating margin -6% vs 22.7%; ttm roe -31.3% vs 29.8%.
Is PG's lead over OTLY getting stronger or weaker?
PG lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 3 to 8 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 12 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-02, when PG moved ahead of OTLY.
What would change the OTLY vs PG 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 43 points behind, the largest single contributor to PG's edge; OTLY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; PG starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 OTLY and PG?
OTLY: 3 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. PG: 0 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 PG it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare OTLY 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.