PZZA vs TOST Stock Comparison
TOST currently leads PZZA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between PZZA and TOST?
TOST leads the current stock comparison as Toast, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Papa John's International, Inc. vs Toast, Inc.
TOST leads
TOST leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors PZZA on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support TOST, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Papa John's International, Inc.
Toast, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors TOST over PZZA, 59 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. TOST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. TOST also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors PZZA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TOST today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability. TOST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Papa John's International, Inc. and Toast, Inc. 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 PZZA and TOST 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.
- Quality40 vs 66TOST +26
- Momentum33 vs 55TOST +22
- Risk Resilience50 vs 55TOST +5
- Value61 vs 58Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor TOST. TOST’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience +2, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
TOST's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — PZZA and TOST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
TOST (Toast, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
PZZA (Papa John's International, Inc.): 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
TOSTTOST on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
TOSTTOST on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
TOSTTOST on the Momentum factor, by 22 points.
Lower downside
TOSTTOST on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
PZZAPZZA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors TOST, analyst targets favor PZZA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | PZZA | TOST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +40% | +16.4% | PZZA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.3% | +46.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 18 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor TOST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | TOST | 46 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | TOST | EPS growth 19% vs 28.6%; TTM ROE -6.2% vs 23.8%; gross margin 23.2% vs 26.7%; operating margin 4.1% vs 6.4% |
| Valuation | Even | Value 61 vs 58 |
| Technicals | TOST | Price vs 50-day -10.8% vs -1.6%; vs 200-day -38.7% vs 8.7% |
| Risk Resilience | TOST | Risk Resilience 50 vs 55 |
| Analyst expectations | PZZA | Target upside 40% vs 16.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of PZZA and TOST 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (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 TOST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28TOST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- TOST +13
- 46 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- TOST +20
- 44 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- TOST +13
- 45 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- TOST +20
- 45 vs 65
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only PZZA
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (46.15%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.71%)
- 52-Week Low Proximity — bearish, risk, long horizon (1.6%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only TOST
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.62%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
PZZA 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.
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.84%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.57%, 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.
- 1PZZA closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge.
- 2PZZA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3TOST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
TOST leads on balance| Metric | PZZA | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.8% | 17.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19% | 28.6% |
| Gross margin | 23.2% | 26.7% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 6.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -6.2% | 23.8% |
| Debt to equity | -2.06 | 0 |
Performance
TOST leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | PZZA | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.6% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -5.9% | 10.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -38.7% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -47.1% | 11.6% |
| Year to date | -51.8% | -10.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -66.1% | -16.7% |
Technicals
TOST has the stronger structure| Metric | PZZA | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.2 | 57.5 |
| ADX (14) | 33.9 | 15 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.8% | -1.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -38.7% | 8.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 25% | 39.7% |
Risk
TOST is the more resilient| Metric | PZZA | TOST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.3 | 1.07 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.87 | -0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.72 | -0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -65.5% | -42.8% |
| Current drawdown | -64.7% | -18.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.6% | 46.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -5% | -4.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, PZZA or TOST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, TOST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against PZZA's 46. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 PZZA or TOST the better buy right now?
TOST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 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 TOST over PZZA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. TOST leads Quality by 26 points; TOST leads Momentum by 22 points; TOST leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, PZZA or TOST?
Analyst price targets imply +40% upside for PZZA and +16.4% for TOST, so the Street currently favors PZZA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors TOST. 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, PZZA or TOST?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, PZZA or TOST?
TOST 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, PZZA or TOST?
TOST on the Momentum factor, by 22 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, PZZA or TOST?
TOST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TOST on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 PZZA more profitable than TOST?
TOST leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 23.2% vs 26.7%; operating margin 4.1% vs 6.4%; ttm roe -6.2% vs 23.8%.
Is TOST's lead over PZZA getting stronger or weaker?
TOST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the PZZA vs TOST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: PZZA closes the Quality gap — currently 26 points behind, the largest single contributor to TOST's edge; PZZA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; TOST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 PZZA and TOST?
PZZA: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. TOST: 3 bullish / 0 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 PZZA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TOST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare PZZA and TOST 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.