WMT vs PEP Stock Comparison
PEP currently leads WMT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 54. The clearest difference is value, while WMT has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between WMT and PEP?
PEP leads the current stock comparison as PepsiCo, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Walmart Inc. vs PepsiCo, Inc.
PEP leads
PEP leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support PEP.
Walmart Inc.
PepsiCo, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors PEP over WMT, 56 versus 54 as of Oct 21, 2026. PEP's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while WMT holds the stronger momentum profile. PEP also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor PEP today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points.
Compare Walmart Inc. and PepsiCo, Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare WMT and PEP 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.
- Momentum76 vs 61WMT +15
- Value35 vs 48PEP +13
- Quality53 vs 64PEP +11
- Risk Resilience55 vs 49WMT +6
2 of 6 evidence groups favor PEP. PEP’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; WMT keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
The central trade-off
PEP (PepsiCo, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
WMT (Walmart Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, risk resilience, 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
PEPPEP on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
WMTWMT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
PEPPEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
WMTWMT on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
WMTWMT on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | WMT | PEP | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +11% | +11.6% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +34.4% | +33.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 13 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | WMT | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 5.48% | 6.92% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $4.023 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.940 | $5.623 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #232 | #194 |
PEP grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.92% a year against WMT's 5.48%. 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
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 | Even | 54 vs 56 |
| Fundamentals | PEPon balance | revenue growth 5.7% vs 4.5%; EPS growth 19.4% vs 2.3%; TTM ROE 22.7% vs 50.7%; gross margin 25.2% vs 54.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 15.3% — PEP takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | PEP | Value 35 vs 48 |
| Technicals | WMT | Price vs 50-day 7.9% vs 0.3%; vs 200-day -0.4% vs -8.3% |
| Risk Resilience | WMT | Risk Resilience 55 vs 49 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 11% vs 11.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of WMT 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 narrow at 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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.
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 Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge.
- 2WMT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3PEP 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
PEP leads on balance| Metric | WMT | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.7% | 4.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 19.4% | 2.3% |
| Gross margin | 25.2% | 54.2% |
| Operating margin | 4.4% | 15.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 22.7% | 50.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.75 | 2.33 |
Performance
WMT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | WMT | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 5% | 5.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7% | 2.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.8% | -1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9.1% | -13.5% |
| Year to date | 5.8% | -6.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.7% | -12.2% |
Technicals
WMT has the stronger structure| Metric | WMT | PEP |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 80.7 | 67.8 |
| ADX (14) | 27.6 | 27.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.9% | 0.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -0.4% | -8.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.4% | 22.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, WMT or PEP?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, PEP is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 56 against WMT's 54. The edge comes from value and quality. WMT is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 PEP the better buy right now?
PEP carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor PEP over WMT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. WMT leads Momentum by 15 points; PEP leads Value by 13 points; PEP leads Quality by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, WMT or PEP?
Analyst price targets imply +11% upside for WMT and +11.6% for PEP. 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, WMT or PEP?
PEP is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. PEP on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 PEP?
WMT 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, WMT or PEP?
WMT on the Momentum factor, by 15 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, WMT or PEP?
WMT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. WMT on Risk Resilience, by 6 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 WMT more profitable than PEP?
PEP leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 25.2% vs 54.2%; operating margin 4.4% vs 15.3%; ttm roe 22.7% vs 50.7%.
What would change the WMT vs PEP verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: WMT closes the Value gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to PEP's edge; WMT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; PEP 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.
Compare WMT and PEP 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.