SMPL vs STZ Stock Comparison
Compare SMPL and STZ across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between SMPL and STZ?
SMPL leads the current stock comparison as The Simply Good Foods Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Simply Good Foods Company vs Constellation Brands, Inc.
SMPL leads
SMPL leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support SMPL.
The Simply Good Foods Company
Constellation Brands, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SMPL over STZ, 47 versus 44 as of Sep 11, 2026. SMPL's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while STZ holds the stronger quality profile. SMPL also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SMPL today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. SMPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Simply Good Foods Company 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 SMPL 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.
- Value70 vs 51SMPL +19
- Quality40 vs 58STZ +18
- Momentum33 vs 21SMPL +12
- Risk Resilience39 vs 40Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor SMPL. SMPL’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; STZ keeps a meaningful quality 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 +2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
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 — SMPL and STZ both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SMPL (The Simply Good Foods Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
STZ (Constellation Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals.
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
STZSTZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SMPLSMPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
SMPLSMPL on the Momentum factor, by 12 points.
Lower downside
STZSTZ carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
SMPLSMPL on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | SMPL | STZ | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +47.8% | +32.6% | SMPL has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.9% | +33.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 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 | Even | 47 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | STZ | revenue growth 9.5% vs 26.7%; EPS growth 66.5% vs 227.6%; TTM ROE -12.3% vs 23.1%; gross margin 32.1% vs 52.6%; operating margin 5.9% vs 32.1% |
| Valuation | SMPL | Value 70 vs 51 |
| Technicals | STZ | Price vs 50-day -13.1% vs -7.2%; vs 200-day -29.6% vs -14.6% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 39 vs 40 |
| Analyst expectations | SMPL | Target upside 47.8% vs 32.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of SMPL and STZ 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- SMPL +3
- 47 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- SMPL +4
- 52 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- SMPL +2
- 53 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- SMPL +11
- 55 vs 44
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when SMPL moved ahead of STZ.
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.
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%)
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 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 -3.91%, 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.
- 1STZ closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMPL's edge.
- 2STZ'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
STZ leads on balance| Metric | SMPL | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.5% | 26.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 66.5% | 227.6% |
| Gross margin | 32.1% | 52.6% |
| Operating margin | 5.9% | 32.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -12.3% | 23.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.28 | 1.28 |
Performance
STZ leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | SMPL | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -9.2% | -4.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.4% | -7.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.8% | -13% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -31% | -17.4% |
| Year to date | -49% | -10.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -63.7% | -15.3% |
Technicals
STZ has the stronger structure| Metric | SMPL | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 40.2 | 27.5 |
| ADX (14) | 12.8 | 13.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -13.1% | -7.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -29.6% | -14.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 53% | 35.7% |
Risk
Split| Metric | SMPL | STZ |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.22 | 0.01 |
| Sharpe ratio | -1.83 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | -2.22 | -0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -63.8% | -27.4% |
| Current drawdown | -63.6% | -25.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.5% | 30.6% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.7% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, SMPL or STZ?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SMPL is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against STZ's 44. The edge comes from value and momentum. STZ is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 SMPL or STZ the better buy right now?
SMPL 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 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SMPL over STZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SMPL leads Value by 19 points; STZ leads Quality by 18 points; SMPL leads Momentum by 12 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, SMPL or STZ?
Analyst price targets imply +47.8% upside for SMPL and +32.6% for STZ, so the Street currently favors 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, SMPL or STZ?
SMPL is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SMPL on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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, SMPL 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, SMPL or STZ?
SMPL on the Momentum factor, by 12 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, SMPL or STZ?
STZ is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. STZ 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 SMPL more profitable than STZ?
STZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32.1% vs 52.6%; operating margin 5.9% vs 32.1%; ttm roe -12.3% vs 23.1%.
Is SMPL's lead over STZ getting stronger or weaker?
SMPL lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 3 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-28, when SMPL moved ahead of STZ.
What would change the SMPL vs STZ verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STZ closes the Value gap — currently 19 points behind, the largest single contributor to SMPL's edge; STZ'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 SMPL and STZ?
SMPL: 0 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral. 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 SMPL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On STZ it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare SMPL 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.