ABT vs XRAY Stock Comparison
Compare ABT and XRAY across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ABT and XRAY?
XRAY leads the current stock comparison as DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Abbott Laboratories vs DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.
XRAY leads
XRAY leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ABT.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support XRAY, the lead recently changed hands, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Abbott Laboratories
DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors XRAY over ABT, 47 versus 45 as of Sep 11, 2026. XRAY's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and momentum, while ABT holds the stronger quality profile. XRAY also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XRAY today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. XRAY lead: Reversed — ABT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XRAY now leads by 2.
Compare Abbott Laboratories and DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ABT and XRAY 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.
- Quality57 vs 27ABT +30
- Value48 vs 73XRAY +25
- Momentum20 vs 37XRAY +17
- Risk Resilience57 vs 50ABT +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor XRAY. XRAY’s edge is concentrated in value and momentum; ABT keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -14
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
The lead changed hands: XRAY moved ahead of ABT in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ABT and XRAY both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
XRAY (DENTSPLY SIRONA Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and momentum.
ABT (Abbott Laboratories): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, 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
XRAYXRAY on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
XRAYXRAY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
XRAYXRAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 points.
Momentum
XRAYXRAY on the Momentum factor, by 17 points.
Lower downside
ABTABT on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
XRAYXRAY 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 | XRAY | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.1% | +24.3% | XRAY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +42.4% | +61.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 5 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor XRAY. 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 | 45 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | ABTon balance | revenue growth 12.8% vs 2%; EPS growth -14.5% vs 4.6%; TTM ROE 10.5% vs -39.8%; gross margin 56.8% vs 49.5%; operating margin 17% vs 11.7% — ABT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | XRAY | Value 48 vs 73 |
| Technicals | ABT | Price vs 50-day -3% vs -13.9%; vs 200-day -2.5% vs -10.6% |
| Risk Resilience | ABT | Risk Resilience 57 vs 50 |
| Analyst expectations | XRAY | Target upside 18.1% vs 24.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ABT and XRAY 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)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 XRAY.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10XRAY lead: Reversed — ABT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XRAY now leads by 2.
- Today
- XRAY +2
- 45 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- ABT +4
- 53 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- ABT +18
- 60 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- ABT +1
- 58 vs 57
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Sep 10 when XRAY 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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.83%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 neutral
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (3.42%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.53%)
ABT 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.36%, AIQ -4 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.38%, 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 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to XRAY's edge.
- 2ABT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3XRAY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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
ABT leads on balance| Metric | ABT | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.8% | 2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -14.5% | 4.6% |
| Gross margin | 56.8% | 49.5% |
| Operating margin | 17% | 11.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 10.5% | -39.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 1.71 |
Performance
ABT leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | ABT | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.8% | -8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 15.9% | 4.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -6.2% | -17.5% |
| Year to date | -17.5% | -8.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -21.8% | -26.1% |
Technicals
ABT has the stronger structure| Metric | ABT | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.9 | 44.5 |
| ADX (14) | 24.3 | 20.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3% | -13.9% |
| Price vs 200-day | -2.5% | -10.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 22.6% | 33.1% |
Risk
ABT is the more resilient| Metric | ABT | XRAY |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.04 | 1.3 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.92 | -0.46 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.33 | -0.73 |
| Max drawdown | -39.6% | -34.3% |
| Current drawdown | -24.3% | -28.5% |
| Annualized volatility | 27.1% | 46.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ABT or XRAY?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, XRAY is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 47 against ABT's 45. 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 XRAY the better buy right now?
XRAY carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 XRAY over ABT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ABT leads Quality by 30 points; XRAY leads Value by 25 points; XRAY leads Momentum by 17 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ABT or XRAY?
Analyst price targets imply +18.1% upside for ABT and +24.3% for XRAY, so the Street currently favors XRAY. 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 XRAY?
XRAY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. XRAY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 25 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 XRAY?
XRAY 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 XRAY?
XRAY on the Momentum factor, by 17 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 XRAY?
ABT is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ABT on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 XRAY?
ABT leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 56.8% vs 49.5%; operating margin 17% vs 11.7%; ttm roe 10.5% vs -39.8%.
Is XRAY's lead over ABT getting stronger or weaker?
XRAY lead: Reversed — ABT led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; XRAY now leads by 2. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-09-10, when XRAY moved ahead of ABT.
What would change the ABT vs XRAY verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ABT closes the Value gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to XRAY's edge; ABT's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; XRAY's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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.
What do the current signals say about ABT and XRAY?
ABT: 2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted. XRAY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 2 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 ABT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On XRAY it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ABT and XRAY 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.