RMCF vs SMPL Stock Comparison
Compare RMCF and SMPL across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RMCF and SMPL?
SMPL leads the current stock comparison as The Simply Good Foods Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. vs The Simply Good Foods Company
SMPL leads
SMPL leads by 14 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 9 points over 30 sessions.
Stable: 5 of 5 evidence groups support SMPL, and its lead is widening.
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.
The Simply Good Foods Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMPL over RMCF, 47 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. SMPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. SMPL also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SMPL today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. SMPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions. SMPL 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 Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, 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 RMCF 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.
- Quality9 vs 40SMPL +31
- Momentum25 vs 33SMPL +8
- Value64 vs 70SMPL +6
- Risk Resilience34 vs 39SMPL +5
5 of 5 evidence groups favor SMPL. SMPL’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
SMPL's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMCF and SMPL both carry a full feed there.
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
SMPLSMPL 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 6 points.
Momentum
SMPLSMPL on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
SMPLSMPL on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | SMPL | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +47.8% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +61.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 9 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 5 covered evidence groups favor SMPL. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SMPL | 33 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | SMPLon balance | revenue growth -9.5% vs 9.5%; EPS growth 71.4% vs 66.5%; TTM ROE -100.5% vs -12.3%; gross margin 18.8% vs 32.1%; operating margin -15.8% vs 5.9% — SMPL takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SMPL | Value 64 vs 70 |
| Technicals | SMPL | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -13.1%; vs 200-day -50.3% vs -29.6% |
| Risk Resilience | SMPL | Risk Resilience 34 vs 39 |
| 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 SMPL 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 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 SMPL.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10SMPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SMPL +14
- 33 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- SMPL +19
- 33 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- SMPL +9
- 44 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- SMPL +21
- 34 vs 55
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on May 15 when SMPL 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
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (76.48%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long 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%)
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 -1.07%, AIQ 0 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.
- 1RMCF closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMPL's edge.
- 2RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SMPL starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 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
SMPL leads on balance| Metric | RMCF | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.5% | 9.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 71.4% | 66.5% |
| Gross margin | 18.8% | 32.1% |
| Operating margin | -15.8% | 5.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -100.5% | -12.3% |
| Debt to equity | 2 | 0.28 |
Performance
SMPL leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | RMCF | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | -9.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -40.3% | -6.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -42.2% | -18.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -62.2% | -31% |
| Year to date | -52.3% | -49% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.7% | -63.7% |
Technicals
SMPL has the stronger structure| Metric | RMCF | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.6 | 40.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.4 | 12.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -13.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -50.3% | -29.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 121.5% | 53% |
Risk
SMPL is the more resilient| Metric | RMCF | SMPL |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.79 | 0.22 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -1.83 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.52 | -2.22 |
| Max drawdown | -76.9% | -63.8% |
| Current drawdown | -68.8% | -63.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 156.6% | 50.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -4.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMCF or SMPL?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SMPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against RMCF's 33. 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 RMCF or SMPL the better buy right now?
SMPL carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 5 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 SMPL over RMCF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SMPL leads Quality by 31 points; SMPL leads Momentum by 8 points; SMPL leads Value by 6 points. SMPL leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by RMCF 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, RMCF or SMPL?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for RMCF and +47.8% for SMPL. 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 SMPL?
SMPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SMPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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 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, RMCF or SMPL?
SMPL on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 SMPL?
SMPL is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SMPL 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 RMCF more profitable than SMPL?
SMPL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.8% vs 32.1%; operating margin -15.8% vs 5.9%; ttm roe -100.5% vs -12.3%.
Is SMPL's lead over RMCF getting stronger or weaker?
SMPL lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 9 to 14 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-05-15, when SMPL moved ahead of RMCF.
What would change the RMCF vs SMPL verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RMCF closes the Quality gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMPL's edge; RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SMPL starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; 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 SMPL?
RMCF: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 RMCF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SMPL it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RMCF 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.