RMCF vs STZ Stock Comparison
Compare RMCF and STZ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between RMCF and STZ?
STZ leads the current stock comparison as Constellation Brands, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. vs Constellation Brands, Inc.
STZ leads
STZ leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 5 evidence groups support STZ, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.
Constellation Brands, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors STZ over RMCF, 44 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. STZ's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while RMCF holds the stronger value profile. STZ also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 5 covered evidence groups favor STZ today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. STZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc. and Constellation Brands, Inc. 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 STZ 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 58STZ +49
- Value64 vs 51RMCF +13
- Risk Resilience34 vs 40STZ +6
- Momentum25 vs 21RMCF +4
4 of 5 evidence groups favor STZ. STZ’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; RMCF 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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
STZ's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — RMCF and STZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
STZ (Constellation Brands, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
RMCF (Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 121.5% against 35.7%.
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
STZSTZ on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STZSTZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
RMCFRMCF on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
RMCFRMCF on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
STZSTZ on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 | STZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | — | +32.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | — | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | — | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 0 | 10 | 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 STZ. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | STZ | 33 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | STZ | revenue growth -9.5% vs 26.7%; EPS growth 71.4% vs 227.6%; TTM ROE -100.5% vs 23.1%; gross margin 18.8% vs 52.6%; operating margin -15.8% vs 32.1% |
| Valuation | RMCF | Value 64 vs 51 |
| Technicals | STZ | Price vs 50-day -13.2% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -50.3% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | STZ | Risk Resilience 34 vs 40 |
| 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 STZ 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 4 of 5 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 STZ.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10STZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- STZ +11
- 33 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- STZ +15
- 33 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- STZ +7
- 44 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- STZ +10
- 34 vs 44
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on May 15 when STZ 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
1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.92%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
STZ 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.
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 -1.1%, 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 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to STZ's edge.
- 2RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3STZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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
STZ leads on balance| Metric | RMCF | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -9.5% | 26.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 71.4% | 227.6% |
| Gross margin | 18.8% | 52.6% |
| Operating margin | -15.8% | 32.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -100.5% | 23.1% |
| Debt to equity | 2 | 1.28 |
Performance
STZ leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | RMCF | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -40.3% | -7.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -42.2% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -62.2% | -17.4% |
| Year to date | -52.3% | -10.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -38.7% | -15.3% |
Technicals
STZ has the stronger structure| Metric | RMCF | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 19.6 | 27.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.4 | 13.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.2% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -50.3% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 121.5% | 35.7% |
Risk
STZ is the more resilient| Metric | RMCF | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.79 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.21 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.52 | -0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -76.9% | -27.4% |
| Current drawdown | -68.8% | -25.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 156.6% | 30.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -7.2% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, RMCF or STZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, STZ is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against RMCF's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. 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 STZ the better buy right now?
STZ carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 STZ over RMCF?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. STZ leads Quality by 49 points; RMCF leads Value by 13 points; STZ leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, RMCF or STZ?
Analyst price targets imply not covered upside for RMCF and +32.6% for STZ. 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 STZ?
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 STZ?
STZ 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 STZ?
RMCF on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 STZ?
STZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STZ on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 STZ?
STZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 18.8% vs 52.6%; operating margin -15.8% vs 32.1%; ttm roe -100.5% vs 23.1%.
Is STZ's lead over RMCF getting stronger or weaker?
STZ lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 11 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-15, when STZ moved ahead of RMCF.
What would change the RMCF vs STZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: RMCF closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to STZ's edge; RMCF's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; STZ's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 5 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 RMCF and STZ?
RMCF: 1 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. STZ: 1 bullish / 5 bearish, 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 RMCF is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On STZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare RMCF and STZ 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.