AVY vs KMB

Avery Dennison Corporation vs Kimberly-Clark Corporation — Valuation Comparison 2026

AVY

Converted Paper & Paperboard Prods (No Contaners/Boxes)
Avery Dennison Corporation
Quality
9.2
out of 10
Value Trap
5
SAFE
Price
$159.07
Last close
Models
13/13
Active
VS

KMB

Converted Paper & Paperboard Prods (No Contaners/Boxes)
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
Quality
8.5
out of 10
Value Trap
14
SAFE
Price
$97.60
Last close
Models
13/13
Active

Model-by-Model Comparison

ModelType AVY Fair ValueAVY Upside KMB Fair ValueKMB Upside
Bayesian DCF Intrinsic $139.35 -12.4% $78.56 -19.5%
Earnings Power Value Intrinsic $40.16 -74.8% $30.35 -68.9%
EROIC Spread Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
First Chicago Scenario $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Markov DDM Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
ML-RIV Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Dynamic NAV Asset-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
PWERM Option-Based $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Regime Cross-Sectional Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
Sentiment SOTP Hybrid $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
CUCE Ensemble Ensemble $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
FTNN Topology Relative $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
RCMH-DCF Intrinsic $•••.•• ••.•% $•••.•• ••.•%
🔒

Unlock Full 13-Model Comparison

Access all valuation models for AVY vs KMB — including EROIC Spread, First Chicago, Markov DDM, PWERM, and 7 more.

Access Full Analysis — From $27/mo →

AVY vs KMB — Which Stock Is More Undervalued?

AVY scores higher with a 9.2/10 quality rating vs KMB's 8.5/10. Both stocks are analyzed daily using SEC EDGAR filings across 13 independent models.

Comparing Avery Dennison Corporation (AVY) and Kimberly-Clark Corporation (KMB) across 13 institutional-grade valuation models reveals how each company's intrinsic value stacks up against its market price. CirclFi's engine processes SEC EDGAR 10-K and 10-Q filings, FRED macroeconomic data, and GDELT news sentiment to generate independent fair value estimates daily.

AVY currently trades at $159.07 with a QOC of 9.2/10, while KMB trades at $97.60 with a QOC of 8.5/10.

Both companies are analyzed with models spanning intrinsic (Bayesian DCF, EPV), scenario-based (First Chicago), regime-switching (Markov DDM, RCMH-DCF), machine learning (ML-RIV, FTNN Topology), and ensemble methods (CUCE).