PEP vs XLP Stock Comparison
XLP currently leads PEP in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 56. The clearest difference is momentum, while PEP has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between PEP and XLP?
XLP leads the current stock comparison as State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
PepsiCo, Inc. vs State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLP leads
XLP leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience.
Fragile: 3 of 4 evidence groups support XLP, and its current signal state is conflicted.
PepsiCo, Inc.
State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XLP over PEP, 62 versus 56 as of Oct 21, 2026. XLP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while PEP holds the stronger value profile. XLP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. XLP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare PepsiCo, Inc. and State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare PEP and XLP 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.
- Momentum61 vs 81XLP +20
- Risk Resilience49 vs 64XLP +15
- Value48 vs 39PEP +9
- Quality64 vs 68XLP +4
3 of 4 evidence groups favor XLP. XLP’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; PEP keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 8 active signals are unchanged.
XLP's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PEP and XLP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XLP (State Street Consumer Staples Select Sector SPDR ETF): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 22.4% against 14.8%.
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
XLPXLP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
XLPXLP on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
XLPXLP on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | PEP | XLP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11.6% | — | Level |
| Target dispersion | +33.9% | — | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | — | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | — | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 4 covered evidence groups favor XLP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | XLP | 56 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | Not covered | Not covered |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 48 vs 39 |
| Technicals | XLP | Price vs 50-day 0.3% vs 3.5%; vs 200-day -8.3% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | XLP | Risk Resilience 49 vs 64 |
| Analyst expectations | Not covered | Not covered |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PEP and XLP 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 moderate at 6 points.
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (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 XLP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20XLP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- XLP +6
- 56 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- XLP +10
- 52 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- XLP +5
- 46 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- XLP +9
- 47 vs 56
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 8 when XLP 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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted
Only PEP
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (8.88%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only XLP
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.10%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.28%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Keltner Channel Breakout, MACD Bullish Crossover.
XLP 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.51%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.73%, 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.
- 1PEP closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLP's edge.
- 2PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XLP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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
Split| Metric | PEP | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.5% | — |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 2.3% | — |
| Gross margin | 54.2% | — |
| Operating margin | 15.3% | — |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 50.7% | — |
| Debt to equity | 2.33 | — |
Performance
XLP leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PEP | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5.3% | 4.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 2.2% | 6.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -1.2% | 4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.5% | 7.2% |
| Year to date | -6.6% | 13% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -12.2% | 11.4% |
Technicals
XLP has the stronger structure| Metric | PEP | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 67.8 | 83.4 |
| ADX (14) | 27.2 | 28.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.3% | 3.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.3% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.4% | 14.8% |
Risk
XLP is the more resilient| Metric | PEP | XLP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.17 | -0.09 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.74 | 0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.26 | 0.79 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -10.8% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | -2.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 20.9% | 14.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.1% | -1.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PEP or XLP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XLP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against PEP's 56. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. PEP 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 PEP or XLP the better buy right now?
XLP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 4 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor XLP over PEP?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. XLP leads Momentum by 20 points; XLP leads Risk Resilience by 15 points; PEP leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PEP or XLP?
Analyst price targets imply +11.6% upside for PEP and not covered for XLP. 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, PEP or XLP?
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 XLP?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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 XLP?
XLP on the Momentum factor, by 20 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, PEP or XLP?
XLP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. XLP 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 PEP more profitable than XLP?
Margin data is not comparable for both names in the current snapshot.
Is XLP's lead over PEP getting stronger or weaker?
XLP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-08, when XLP moved ahead of PEP.
What would change the PEP vs XLP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PEP closes the Momentum gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to XLP's edge; PEP's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XLP's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 PEP and XLP?
PEP: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. XLP: 6 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 PEP is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XLP it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
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.