UNH vs PEP Stock Comparison
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum. Wall Street currently favors UNH on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PEP.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over UNH, 55 versus 48 as of Sep 2, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while UNH holds the stronger value profile. PEP also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UNH. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare UnitedHealth Group Incorporated and PepsiCo, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
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.
- Quality30%44 vs 64PEP +20
- Momentum25%39 vs 59PEP +20
- Value30%53 vs 45UNH +8
- Risk Resilience15%60 vs 52UNH +8
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; UNH keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-01, compared against the prior scored session 2026-08-31.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
PEP's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — UNH and PEP both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the counter-case, on value, risk resilience, valuation.
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
PEPPEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
PEPPEP on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UNHUNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 points.
Momentum
PEPPEP on the Momentum factor, by 20 points.
Lower downside
UNHUNH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors PEP, analyst targets favor UNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | UNH | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +17.5% | +11.6% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +33.3% | +31.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 11 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | PEP | 48 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | PEP | EPS growth -12.3% vs 28.2%; ROE 14.4% vs 50.4%; gross margin 22.5% vs 54%; operating margin 4.8% vs 15% |
| Valuation | UNH | Value 53 vs 45 |
| Technicals | UNH | Price vs 50-day -3.3% vs 1%; vs 200-day 11.2% vs -5.8% |
| Risk Resilience | UNH | Risk Resilience 60 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 17.5% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of UNH and PEP 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 moderate at 7 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (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 PEP.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- PEP +7
- 48 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- PEP +3
- 48 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- PEP +9
- 43 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- UNH +8
- 58 vs 50
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Jul 28 when PEP moved ahead of UNH.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (17.86%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.53%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
UNH 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 +0.66%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.99%, 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.
- 1UNH closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2UNH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
PEP leads on balance| Metric | UNH | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 24.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -12.3% | 28.2% |
| Gross margin | 22.5% | 54% |
| Operating margin | 4.8% | 15% |
| Return on equity | 14.4% | 50.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.7 | 2.41 |
Technicals
UNH has the stronger structure| Metric | UNH | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.6 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 25.2 | 11.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.3% | 1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11.2% | -5.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 16.5% |
Risk
UNH is the more resilient| Metric | UNH | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.43 | -0.26 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.79 | -0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.96 | -0.51 |
| Max drawdown | -30% | -20.9% |
| Current drawdown | -10.8% | -17.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 21.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, UNH or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 55 against UNH's 48. The edge comes from quality and momentum. UNH 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 UNH or PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PEP over UNH?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. PEP leads Quality by 20 points; PEP leads Momentum by 20 points; UNH leads Value by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, UNH or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +17.5% upside for UNH and +11.6% for PEP, so the Street currently favors UNH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors PEP. 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, UNH or PEP?
UNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 8 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, UNH or PEP?
PEP 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, UNH or PEP?
PEP on the Momentum factor, by 20 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, UNH or PEP?
UNH is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UNH on Risk Resilience, by 8 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is UNH more profitable than PEP?
PEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 22.5% vs 54%; operating margin 4.8% vs 15%; roe 14.4% vs 50.4%.
Is PEP's lead over UNH getting stronger or weaker?
PEP lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 7 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-07-28, when PEP moved ahead of UNH.
What would change the UNH vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNH closes the Quality gap — currently 20 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; UNH's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; PEP starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about UNH and PEP?
UNH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. PEP: 0 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 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 UNH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On PEP it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare UNH and PEP with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.