RMCF vs SJM Stock Comparison
SJM currently leads RMCF in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 33. The clearest difference is momentum, while RMCF has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between RMCF and SJM?
SJM leads the current stock comparison as The J. M. Smucker Company, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. vs The J. M. Smucker Company
SJM leads
SJM leads by 17 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, having only recently taken the lead back from RMCF.
Competitive: 4 of 5 evidence groups support SJM, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.
The J. M. Smucker Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SJM over RMCF, 50 versus 33 as of Oct 31, 2026. SJM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while RMCF holds the stronger value profile. SJM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SJM today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. SJM lead: Reversed — RMCF led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SJM now leads by 17.
Compare Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. and The J. M. Smucker Company 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 RMCF and SJM 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.
- Momentum25 vs 73SJM +48
- Quality9 vs 33SJM +24
- Value64 vs 51RMCF +13
- Risk Resilience34 vs 42SJM +8
4 of 5 evidence groups favor SJM. SJM’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; RMCF keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SJM's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMCF and SJM both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SJM (The J. M. Smucker Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
RMCF (Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 68.2% against 29.7%.
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
SJMSJM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
RMCFRMCF on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMCFRMCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
SJMSJM on the Momentum factor, by 48 points.
Lower downside
SJMSJM on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 | RMCF | SJM | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +1.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +49.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SJM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SJM | 33 vs 50 |
| Fundamentals | SJMon balance | revenue growth -9.5% vs -2.2%; EPS growth 71.4% vs -16.5%; TTM ROE -100.5% vs 4.1%; gross margin 18.8% vs 38.7%; operating margin -15.8% vs 19.7% — SJM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | RMCF | Value 64 vs 51 |
| Technicals | SJM | Price vs 50-day -10.8% vs 4.7%; vs 200-day -51.5% vs 13.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SJM | Risk Resilience 34 vs 42 |
| 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 RMCF and SJM 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 wide at 17 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 SJM.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SJM lead: Reversed — RMCF led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SJM now leads by 17.
- Today
- SJM +17
- 33 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- SJM +14
- 38 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- RMCF +5
- 45 vs 40
- 90 sessions ago
- SJM +9
- 42 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when SJM moved ahead of RMCF.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only RMCF
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (76.45%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (9.84%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only SJM
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.81%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
RMCF 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 +2.41%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +2.88%, AIQ -2 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.
- 1RMCF closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SJM's edge.
- 2RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SJM'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
SJM leads on balance| Metric | RMCF | SJM |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.5% | -2.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 71.4% | -16.5% |
| Gross margin | 18.8% | 38.7% |
| Operating margin | -15.8% | 19.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -100.5% | 4.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2 | 1.2 |
Performance
SJM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RMCF | SJM |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.7% | -1.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.5% | 5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.3% | 2.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -66.9% | 29.6% |
| Year to date | -57.1% | 28.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -55.6% | 22.8% |
Technicals
SJM has the stronger structure| Metric | RMCF | SJM |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.2 | 61.5 |
| ADX (14) | 23.4 | 26.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -10.8% | 4.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -51.5% | 13.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 68.2% | 29.7% |
Risk
SJM is the more resilient| Metric | RMCF | SJM |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.61 | -0.32 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.02 | 0.63 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.04 | 1.22 |
| Max drawdown | -76.9% | -22.8% |
| Current drawdown | -72% | -5.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 152% | 28.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.8% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMCF or SJM?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SJM is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 50 against RMCF's 33. The edge comes from momentum and quality. RMCF 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 RMCF or SJM the better buy right now?
SJM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 5 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 SJM over RMCF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SJM leads Momentum by 48 points; SJM leads Quality by 24 points; RMCF leads Value by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RMCF or SJM?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for RMCF and +1.1% for SJM. 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, RMCF or SJM?
RMCF is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. RMCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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, RMCF or SJM?
RMCF 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, RMCF or SJM?
SJM on the Momentum factor, by 48 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, RMCF or SJM?
SJM is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SJM on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 RMCF more profitable than SJM?
SJM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.8% vs 38.7%; operating margin -15.8% vs 19.7%; ttm roe -100.5% vs 4.1%.
Is SJM's lead over RMCF getting stronger or weaker?
SJM lead: Reversed — RMCF led by 5 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SJM now leads by 17. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when SJM moved ahead of RMCF.
What would change the RMCF vs SJM verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RMCF closes the Momentum gap — currently 48 points behind, the largest single contributor to SJM's edge; RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SJM'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 RMCF and SJM?
RMCF: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SJM: 4 bullish / 0 bearish. 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 RMCF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SJM it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare RMCF and SJM 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.