WMT vs KO Stock Comparison
Walmart Inc. vs The Coca-Cola Company
KO leads
KO leads by 18 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality, and the lead has widened from 12 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors WMT on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support KO, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Walmart Inc.
The Coca-Cola Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors KO over WMT, 58 versus 40 as of Sep 2, 2026. KO's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while WMT holds the stronger value profile. KO also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors WMT. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KO today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the lead has swung materially session to session. KO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Walmart Inc. and The Coca-Cola Company 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.
- Momentum25%25 vs 69KO +44
- Quality30%53 vs 80KO +27
- Risk Resilience15%48 vs 57KO +9
- Value30%34 vs 28WMT +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor KO. KO’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; WMT 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.
KO's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — WMT and KO both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
KO (The Coca-Cola Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
WMT (Walmart Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 37.8% against 14.9%.
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
KOKO on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
EvenGrowth figures are not covered for both names.
Value
WMTWMT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
KOKO on the Momentum factor, by 44 points.
Lower downside
KOKO on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
WMTWMT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors KO, analyst targets favor WMT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | WMT | KO | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +23.8% | +4.8% | WMT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +22.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 20 | 12 | 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
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor KO. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | KO | 40 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | KOon balance | revenue growth -6.8% vs 7.3%; EPS growth 26.4% vs 13.2%; ROE 23.9% vs 43%; gross margin 25% vs 61.9%; operating margin 4.2% vs 29.6% — KO takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | WMT | Value 34 vs 28 |
| Technicals | KO | Price vs 50-day -5.1% vs 3.7%; vs 200-day -11.6% vs 13.5% |
| Risk Resilience | KO | Risk Resilience 48 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | WMT | Target upside 23.8% vs 4.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WMT and KO 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 wide at 18 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 KO.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 20 – Sep 1KO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- KO +18
- 40 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- KO +19
- 39 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- KO +12
- 47 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- KO +16
- 42 vs 58
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 3 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.11%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.37%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
KO 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 +0.14%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.63%, 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.
- 1WMT closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to KO's edge.
- 2WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3KO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 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
KO leads on balance| Metric | WMT | KO |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -6.8% | 7.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.4% | 13.2% |
| Gross margin | 25% | 61.9% |
| Operating margin | 4.2% | 29.6% |
| Return on equity | 23.9% | 43% |
| Debt to equity | 0.79 | 1.2 |
Technicals
KO has the stronger structure| Metric | WMT | KO |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.7 | 59.5 |
| ADX (14) | 18.9 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.1% | 3.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.6% | 13.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 37.8% | 14.9% |
Risk
KO is the more resilient| Metric | WMT | KO |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.08 | -0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.32 | 1.27 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.42 | 2.38 |
| Max drawdown | -23.5% | -8.5% |
| Current drawdown | -21.9% | -3.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 26.1% | 18.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.4% | -1.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WMT or KO?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, KO is the stronger of the two as of Sep 2, 2026, scoring 58 against WMT's 40. The edge comes from momentum and quality. WMT 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 WMT or KO the better buy right now?
KO carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 2, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 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 KO over WMT?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. KO leads Momentum by 44 points; KO leads Quality by 27 points; KO leads Risk Resilience by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WMT or KO?
Analyst price targets imply +23.8% upside for WMT and +4.8% for KO, so the Street currently favors WMT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors KO. 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, WMT or KO?
WMT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. WMT 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, WMT or KO?
Growth figures are not covered for both names. 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, WMT or KO?
KO on the Momentum factor, by 44 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, WMT or KO?
KO is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. KO on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 WMT more profitable than KO?
KO leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25% vs 61.9%; operating margin 4.2% vs 29.6%; roe 23.9% vs 43%.
Is KO's lead over WMT getting stronger or weaker?
KO lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 12 to 18 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-20 and 2026-09-01. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the WMT vs KO verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMT closes the Momentum gap — currently 44 points behind, the largest single contributor to KO's edge; WMT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; KO's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; 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 WMT and KO?
WMT: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. KO: 3 bullish / 1 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 WMT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On KO it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare WMT and KO 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.