PEP vs MCD Stock Comparison
PepsiCo, Inc. vs McDonald's Corporation
PEP leads
PEP leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors MCD on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support PEP, and its lead is widening.
PepsiCo, Inc.
McDonald's Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over MCD, 55 versus 41 as of Sep 2, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. PEP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors MCD. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. PEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions. PEP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare PepsiCo, Inc. and McDonald's Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Momentum25%59 vs 28PEP +31
- Value30%45 vs 36PEP +9
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 43PEP +9
- Quality30%64 vs 56PEP +8
5 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
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 — PEP and MCD both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
MCD (McDonald's Corporation): the counter-case, on analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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 at 30% each.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
PEPPEP on the Momentum factor, by 31 points.
Lower downside
PEPPEP on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
MCDMCD on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PEP, analyst targets favor MCD. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PEP | MCD | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.6% | +22.4% | MCD has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.1% | +31.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 14 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 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 | 55 vs 41 |
| Fundamentals | PEPon balance | revenue growth 24.4% vs 8.9%; EPS growth 28.2% vs 19%; ROE 50.4% vs -5.6%; gross margin 54% vs 57.4%; operating margin 15% vs 46% — PEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 45 vs 36 |
| Technicals | PEP | Price vs 50-day 1% vs -3.2%; vs 200-day -5.8% vs -11.2% |
| Risk Resilience | PEP | Risk Resilience 52 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | MCD | Target upside 11.6% vs 22.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PEP and MCD and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 14 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 PEP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1PEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PEP +14
- 55 vs 41
- 7 sessions ago
- PEP +11
- 51 vs 40
- 30 sessions ago
- PEP +4
- 52 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- PEP +9
- 50 vs 41
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 29 when MCD 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.
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.83%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.4%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
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 +0.99%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.22%, 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.
- 1MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
PEP leads on balance| Metric | PEP | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 24.4% | 8.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 28.2% | 19% |
| Gross margin | 54% | 57.4% |
| Operating margin | 15% | 46% |
| Return on equity | 50.4% | -5.6% |
| Debt to equity | 2.41 | -53.36 |
Technicals
PEP has the stronger structure| Metric | PEP | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 55 | 36.3 |
| ADX (14) | 11.7 | 13.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1% | -3.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -5.8% | -11.2% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.5% | 20.3% |
Risk
PEP is the more resilient| Metric | PEP | MCD |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.26 | -0.04 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.3 | -1.04 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.51 | -1.59 |
| Max drawdown | -20.9% | -23.8% |
| Current drawdown | -17.7% | -22.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 21.3% | 18.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PEP or MCD?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 55 against MCD's 41. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 PEP or MCD the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PEP over MCD?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PEP leads Momentum by 31 points; PEP leads Value by 9 points; PEP leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. PEP leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by MCD simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, PEP or MCD?
Analyst price targets imply +11.6% upside for PEP and +22.4% for MCD, so the Street currently favors MCD. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PEP. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, PEP or MCD?
PEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, PEP or MCD?
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, PEP or MCD?
PEP on the Momentum factor, by 31 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, PEP or MCD?
PEP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PEP on Risk Resilience, by 9 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PEP more profitable than MCD?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 54% vs 57.4%; operating margin 15% vs 46%; roe 50.4% vs -5.6%. PEP leads on one measure and MCD on two measures, 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 PEP's lead over MCD getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-29, when MCD moved ahead of PEP.
What would change the PEP vs MCD verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: MCD closes the Momentum gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; MCD's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about PEP and MCD?
PEP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral. MCD: 0 bullish / 4 bearish. The most decision-relevant rule on PEP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On MCD it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare PEP and MCD with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.