STZ vs TAP Stock Comparison
Compare STZ and TAP across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between STZ and TAP?
STZ and TAP are close on the current AIQ evidence, so the better fit depends more on objective, risk tolerance and valuation preference than on a single headline score.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Constellation Brands, Inc. vs Molson Coors Beverage Company
STZ and TAP are effectively level
STZ and TAP are effectively level on the AIQ Score; the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Constellation Brands, Inc.
Molson Coors Beverage Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score does not currently separate STZ and TAP as of Sep 11, 2026. Both names are scored on the same 0–100 scale across Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience, and the factor table below shows where each one holds its advantage.
Compare Constellation Brands, Inc. and Molson Coors Beverage 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 STZ and TAP 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.
- Quality58 vs 35STZ +23
- Value51 vs 70TAP +19
- Risk Resilience40 vs 44TAP +4
- Momentum21 vs 24Even
Neither name separates cleanly on the covered dimensions.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — STZ and TAP 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
EvenNeither separates on the overall score.
Growth
STZSTZ on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
TAPTAP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
TAPTAP on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
STZSTZ 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 | STZ | TAP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +32.6% | +8.9% | STZ has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +14.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
How each independent group of evidence reads the pair.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 44 vs 44 |
| Fundamentals | STZon balance | revenue growth 26.7% vs 31.7%; EPS growth 227.6% vs 55%; TTM ROE 23.1% vs -22.6%; gross margin 52.6% vs 36.2%; operating margin 32.1% vs -22.7% — STZ takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | TAP | Value 51 vs 70 |
| Technicals | TAP | Price vs 50-day -7.2% vs -5%; vs 200-day -14.6% vs -12.6% |
| Risk Resilience | TAP | Risk Resilience 40 vs 44 |
| Analyst expectations | STZ | Target upside 32.6% vs 8.9% |
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 0 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 1 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10TAP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 0 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- Level
- 44 vs 44
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 48 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- TAP +1
- 51 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- TAP +2
- 44 vs 46
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Sep 3 when TAP 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 / 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
1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.34%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
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 -1.1%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.27%, AIQ 0 points).
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 | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 26.7% | 31.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 227.6% | 55% |
| Gross margin | 52.6% | 36.2% |
| Operating margin | 32.1% | -22.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 23.1% | -22.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.28 | 0.76 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | STZ | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.3% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.6% | -7.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13% | -6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -17.4% | -14.5% |
| Year to date | -10.3% | -17.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -15.3% | -22.9% |
Technicals
TAP has the stronger structure| Metric | STZ | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 27.5 | 18.9 |
| ADX (14) | 13.2 | 17.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.2% | -5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -14.6% | -12.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.7% | 32.8% |
Risk
TAP is the more resilient| Metric | STZ | TAP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.01 | -0.21 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.51 | -0.87 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.76 | -1.35 |
| Max drawdown | -27.4% | -29.3% |
| Current drawdown | -25.7% | -29.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.6% | 28.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.8% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which has more analyst upside, STZ or TAP?
Analyst price targets imply +32.6% upside for STZ and +8.9% for TAP, so the Street currently favors STZ. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, STZ or TAP?
TAP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. TAP 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, STZ or TAP?
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 TAP?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 TAP?
TAP is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. TAP on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 TAP?
STZ leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 52.6% vs 36.2%; operating margin 32.1% vs -22.7%; ttm roe 23.1% vs -22.6%.
What do the current signals say about STZ and TAP?
STZ: 1 bullish / 5 bearish, conflicted. TAP: 1 bullish / 5 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 STZ is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On TAP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare STZ and TAP 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.