ABT vs VTRS Stock Comparison
VTRS currently leads ABT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 55. The clearest difference is value, while ABT has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between ABT and VTRS?
VTRS leads the current stock comparison as Viatris Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abbott Laboratories vs Viatris Inc.
VTRS leads
VTRS leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, but the lead has narrowed from 10 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support VTRS, its lead is narrowing, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Abbott Laboratories
Viatris Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors VTRS over ABT, 59 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. VTRS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while ABT holds the stronger quality profile. VTRS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VTRS today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. VTRS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Abbott Laboratories and Viatris Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Total return with distributions reinvested, from daily closes.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000, distributions reinvested
Split-adjusted closes; each distribution is reinvested at the close on its ex-dividend date. Taxes and trading costs are not modeled.
Compare ABT and VTRS 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.
- Quality55 vs 31ABT +24
- Value51 vs 73VTRS +22
- Momentum59 vs 75VTRS +16
- Risk Resilience56 vs 61VTRS +5
5 of 6 evidence groups favor VTRS. VTRS’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; ABT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 2 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
VTRS's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABT and VTRS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
VTRS (Viatris Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ABT (Abbott Laboratories): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals.
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
VTRSVTRS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ABTABT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
VTRSVTRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
VTRSVTRS on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
VTRSVTRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
VTRSVTRS 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 | ABT | VTRS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +15.1% | +16.5% | VTRS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18% | +27.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 6 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor VTRS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | VTRS | 55 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | ABTon balance | revenue growth 3.3% vs 6.8%; TTM ROE 9.1% vs -2.8%; gross margin 57.1% vs 34.8% — ABT takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | VTRS | Value 51 vs 73 |
| Technicals | VTRS | Price vs 50-day 1.4% vs 9.8%; vs 200-day 0.7% vs 18.5% |
| Risk Resilience | VTRS | Risk Resilience 56 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | VTRS | Target upside 15.1% vs 16.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABT and VTRS 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 VTRS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28VTRS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- VTRS +4
- 55 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- VTRS +2
- 55 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- VTRS +10
- 48 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- ABT +1
- 60 vs 59
The lead changed hands 9 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when VTRS moved ahead of ABT.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish
No signal that the other name lacks.
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only VTRS
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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 +1.56%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.86%, 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.
- 1ABT closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge.
- 2ABT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active.
- 3VTRS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate VTRS's advantage entirely.
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
ABT leads on balance| Metric | ABT | VTRS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 3.3% | 6.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | -166.7% |
| Gross margin | 57.1% | 34.8% |
| Operating margin | 15.2% | -0.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 9.1% | -2.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.96 |
Performance
VTRS leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ABT | VTRS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | 1.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 3.9% | 5.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -2.8% | 5.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 12.4% | 25.4% |
| Year to date | -18.1% | 49.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -19.1% | 81.4% |
Technicals
VTRS has the stronger structure| Metric | ABT | VTRS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 61.9 | 65.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.1 | 20.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.4% | 9.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 0.7% | 18.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.6% | 27.7% |
Risk
VTRS is the more resilient| Metric | ABT | VTRS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0 | 0.69 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.78 | 1.9 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.13 | 3.08 |
| Max drawdown | -36.8% | -19.6% |
| Current drawdown | -21.4% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.3% | 32.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABT or VTRS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, VTRS is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against ABT's 55. The edge comes from value and momentum. ABT is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 ABT or VTRS the better buy right now?
VTRS carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 VTRS over ABT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABT leads Quality by 24 points; VTRS leads Value by 22 points; VTRS leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABT or VTRS?
Analyst price targets imply +15.1% upside for ABT and +16.5% for VTRS, so the Street currently favors VTRS. 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, ABT or VTRS?
VTRS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. VTRS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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, ABT or VTRS?
ABT 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, ABT or VTRS?
VTRS on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, ABT or VTRS?
VTRS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. VTRS on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 ABT more profitable than VTRS?
ABT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.1% vs 34.8%; operating margin 15.2% vs -0.6%; ttm roe 9.1% vs -2.8%.
Is VTRS's lead over ABT getting stronger or weaker?
VTRS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 10 to 4 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 9 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when VTRS moved ahead of ABT.
What would change the ABT vs VTRS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ABT closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to VTRS's edge; ABT generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish or Uptrend Structure Active; VTRS's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate VTRS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ABT and VTRS?
ABT: 2 bullish / 0 bearish. VTRS: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. The most decision-relevant rule on ABT is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On VTRS it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ABT and VTRS 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.