PM vs SMPL Stock Comparison
Compare PM and SMPL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between PM and SMPL?
PM leads the current stock comparison as Philip Morris International Inc., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Philip Morris International Inc. vs The Simply Good Foods Company
PM leads
PM leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from SMPL. Wall Street currently favors SMPL on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PM, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Philip Morris International Inc.
The Simply Good Foods Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PM over SMPL, 48 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. PM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while SMPL holds the stronger value profile. PM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors SMPL. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. PM lead: Reversed — SMPL led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PM now leads by 1.
Compare Philip Morris International Inc. and The Simply Good Foods 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 PM and SMPL 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.
- Value31 vs 70SMPL +39
- Momentum58 vs 33PM +25
- Quality60 vs 40PM +20
- Risk Resilience42 vs 39Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PM. PM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; SMPL 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 +18
New signals
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: PM moved ahead of SMPL in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PM and SMPL both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PM (Philip Morris International Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
SMPL (The Simply Good Foods Company): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 53% against 24.6%.
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
PMPM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
SMPLSMPL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SMPLSMPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 points.
Momentum
PMPM on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
PMPM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
SMPLSMPL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PM, analyst targets favor SMPL. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PM | SMPL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +6.2% | +47.8% | SMPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.1% | +61.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 9 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PM. 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 | 48 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | PMon balance | revenue growth 10.3% vs 9.5%; EPS growth 15.4% vs 66.5%; TTM ROE -112.2% vs -12.3%; gross margin 67.5% vs 32.1%; operating margin 37.7% vs 5.9% — PM takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SMPL | Value 31 vs 70 |
| Technicals | PM | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day 8.5% vs -29.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 42 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | SMPL | Target upside 6.2% vs 47.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PM and SMPL 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 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 PM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10PM lead: Reversed — SMPL led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PM now leads by 1.
- Today
- PM +1
- 48 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SMPL +8
- 44 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- SMPL +5
- 48 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- SMPL +4
- 51 vs 55
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when PM moved ahead of SMPL.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.65%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (28.39%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
PM 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 +0.68%, AIQ +4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.91%, 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.
- 1SMPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to PM's edge.
- 2SMPL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3PM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
PM leads on balance| Metric | PM | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 10.3% | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 15.4% | 66.5% |
| Gross margin | 67.5% | 32.1% |
| Operating margin | 37.7% | 5.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -112.2% | -12.3% |
| Debt to equity | -5.72 | 0.28 |
Performance
PM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | PM | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1% | -9.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.9% | -6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 3.7% | -18.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 13.7% | -31% |
| Year to date | 18.3% | -49% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 16.6% | -63.7% |
Technicals
PM has the stronger structure| Metric | PM | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.3 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 13.9 | 12.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 8.5% | -29.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.6% | 53% |
Risk
Split| Metric | PM | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.19 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.5 | -1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.75 | -2.22 |
| Max drawdown | -19.3% | -63.8% |
| Current drawdown | -5.2% | -63.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.5% | 50.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.9% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PM or SMPL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against SMPL's 47. The edge comes from momentum and quality. SMPL 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 PM or SMPL the better buy right now?
PM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 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 PM over SMPL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SMPL leads Value by 39 points; PM leads Momentum by 25 points; PM leads Quality by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PM or SMPL?
Analyst price targets imply +6.2% upside for PM and +47.8% for SMPL, so the Street currently favors SMPL. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PM. 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, PM or SMPL?
SMPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SMPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 39 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, PM or SMPL?
SMPL 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, PM or SMPL?
PM on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, PM or SMPL?
PM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. PM carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is PM more profitable than SMPL?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 67.5% vs 32.1%; operating margin 37.7% vs 5.9%; ttm roe -112.2% vs -12.3%. PM leads on two measures and SMPL on one measure, 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 PM's lead over SMPL getting stronger or weaker?
PM lead: Reversed — SMPL led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; PM now leads by 1. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when PM moved ahead of SMPL.
What would change the PM vs SMPL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SMPL closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to PM's edge; SMPL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; PM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 PM and SMPL?
PM: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. SMPL: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 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 PM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On SMPL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare PM and SMPL 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.