STZ vs SYY Stock Comparison
SYY currently leads STZ in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 55. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while STZ has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between STZ and SYY?
SYY leads the current stock comparison as Sysco Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Constellation Brands, Inc. vs Sysco Corporation
SYY leads
SYY leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from STZ. Wall Street currently favors STZ on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support SYY, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Constellation Brands, Inc.
Sysco Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors SYY over STZ, 59 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. SYY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while STZ holds the stronger quality profile. SYY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors STZ. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. SYY lead: Reversed — STZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SYY now leads by 4.
Compare Constellation Brands, Inc. and Sysco Corporation 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 STZ and SYY 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.
- Risk Resilience42 vs 56SYY +14
- Quality58 vs 48STZ +10
- Momentum66 vs 76SYY +10
- Value51 vs 57SYY +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor SYY. SYY’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; STZ keeps a meaningful quality edge.
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 -8
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum -4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
SYY's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STZ and SYY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
SYY (Sysco Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
STZ (Constellation Brands, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 33.2% against 21.8%.
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
SYYSYY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
STZSTZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
SYYSYY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
SYYSYY on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
SYYSYY on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
STZSTZ on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors SYY, analyst targets favor STZ. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | STZ | SYY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +10.8% | +6.6% | STZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42% | +7.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 3 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | STZ | SYY |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.29% | 3.13% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.000 | $1.800 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $4.070 | $2.100 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #206 | #304 |
STZ grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.29% a year against SYY's 3.13%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor SYY. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | SYY | 55 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | STZon balance | revenue growth 26.7% vs 7.8%; EPS growth 227.6% vs 63.4%; TTM ROE 23.1% vs 75.5%; gross margin 52.6% vs 18.5%; operating margin 32.1% vs 3.7% — STZ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | SYY | Value 51 vs 57 |
| Technicals | SYY | Price vs 50-day 7.9% vs 2.9%; vs 200-day -8.6% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | SYY | Risk Resilience 42 vs 56 |
| Analyst expectations | STZ | Target upside 10.8% vs 6.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of STZ and SYY 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 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (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 SYY.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28SYY lead: Reversed — STZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SYY now leads by 4.
- Today
- SYY +4
- 55 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 59 vs 59
- 30 sessions ago
- STZ +1
- 48 vs 47
- 90 sessions ago
- SYY +3
- 51 vs 54
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Oct 14 when SYY 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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only STZ
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (13.23%)
4 bullish / 0 bearish
Only SYY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (0.15%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +3.82%, AIQ -2 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.46%, AIQ -1 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 Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYY's edge.
- 2STZ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3SYY'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
STZ leads on balance| Metric | STZ | SYY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.7% | 7.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 227.6% | 63.4% |
| Gross margin | 52.6% | 18.5% |
| Operating margin | 32.1% | 3.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.1% | 75.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 5.61 |
Performance
SYY leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | STZ | SYY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.7% | 0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 14.8% | 5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -0.4% | -3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -13.7% | 11.1% |
| Year to date | -5.9% | 11.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7% | 6.2% |
Technicals
SYY has the stronger structure| Metric | STZ | SYY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.8 | 65.8 |
| ADX (14) | 32 | 22.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.9% | 2.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8.6% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 33.2% | 21.8% |
Risk
SYY is the more resilient| Metric | STZ | SYY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.07 | 0.15 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.08 | 0.29 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 0.33 |
| Max drawdown | -32.3% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -22.1% | -9.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.2% | 27.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, STZ or SYY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, SYY is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against STZ's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience 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 STZ or SYY the better buy right now?
SYY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor SYY over STZ?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. SYY leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; STZ leads Quality by 10 points; SYY leads Momentum by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, STZ or SYY?
Analyst price targets imply +10.8% upside for STZ and +6.6% for SYY, so the Street currently favors STZ. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors SYY. 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, STZ or SYY?
SYY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. SYY 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, STZ or SYY?
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, STZ or SYY?
SYY on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, STZ or SYY?
SYY is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SYY on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 STZ more profitable than SYY?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 52.6% vs 18.5%; operating margin 32.1% vs 3.7%; ttm roe 23.1% vs 75.5%. STZ leads on two measures and SYY on one measure, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is SYY's lead over STZ getting stronger or weaker?
SYY lead: Reversed — STZ led by 1 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; SYY now leads by 4. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-14, when SYY moved ahead of STZ.
What would change the STZ vs SYY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: STZ closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 14 points behind, the largest single contributor to SYY's edge; STZ's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; SYY'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 STZ and SYY?
STZ: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. SYY: 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 STZ is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SYY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare STZ and SYY 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.