AEG vs BHC Stock Comparison
Compare AEG and BHC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AEG and BHC?
BHC leads the current stock comparison as Bausch Health Companies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Aegon Ltd. vs Bausch Health Companies Inc.
BHC leads
BHC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Aegon Ltd.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over AEG, 68 versus 60 as of Sep 11, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while AEG holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BHC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Aegon Ltd. and Bausch Health Companies 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 AEG and BHC 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.
- Risk Resilience75 vs 23AEG +52
- Quality66 vs 100BHC +34
- Value55 vs 75BHC +20
- Momentum51 vs 48Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; AEG keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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 +12
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
BHC's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AEG and BHC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BHC (Bausch Health Companies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
AEG (Aegon Ltd.): the counter-case, on 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
BHCBHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BHCBHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BHCBHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
AEGAEG on Risk Resilience, by 52 points.
Analyst upside
BHCBHC 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 | AEG | BHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -17.2% | +36.5% | BHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | BHC | 60 vs 68 |
| Fundamentals | BHCon balance | TTM ROE 12.2% vs 88.8%; gross margin 82.5% vs 71.8%; operating margin 3.7% vs 25.4% — BHC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 55 vs 75 |
| Technicals | AEG | Price vs 50-day -0.9% vs 1.5%; vs 200-day 11% vs 3.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AEG | Risk Resilience 75 vs 23 |
| Analyst expectations | BHC | Target upside -17.2% vs 36.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AEG and BHC 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 moderate at 8 points.
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 BHC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +8
- 60 vs 68
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +11
- 60 vs 71
- 30 sessions ago
- BHC +9
- 65 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- AEG +3
- 69 vs 66
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 30 when BHC moved ahead of AEG.
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.
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (12.18%)
- ATR Contraction - Coiling — neutral, volatility, short horizon (1.41%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.40%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (5.25%)
BHC 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.11%, AIQ +3 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.46%, 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.
- 1AEG closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2AEG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 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
BHC leads on balance| Metric | AEG | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0% | 13% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 0% | 117.7% |
| Gross margin | 82.5% | 71.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.7% | 25.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.2% | 88.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0.43 | -11.73 |
Performance
AEG leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AEG | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.2% | -11.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -3.7% | -2.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 8.8% | 17.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.8% | 11.8% |
| Year to date | 17.4% | -12.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 19.4% | -17.2% |
Technicals
AEG has the stronger structure| Metric | AEG | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 52.9 | 34.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.8 | 29.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | -0.9% | 1.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 11% | 3.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 15.6% | 48.2% |
Risk
AEG is the more resilient| Metric | AEG | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.82 | 1.03 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.68 | -0.11 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.86 | -0.2 |
| Max drawdown | -15.7% | -43.9% |
| Current drawdown | -5% | -23.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 24.2% | 56.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.2% | -4.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AEG or BHC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 68 against AEG's 60. The edge comes from quality and value. AEG is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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 AEG or BHC the better buy right now?
BHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 BHC over AEG?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AEG leads Risk Resilience by 52 points; BHC leads Quality by 34 points; BHC leads Value by 20 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AEG or BHC?
Analyst price targets imply -17.2% upside for AEG and +36.5% for BHC, so the Street currently favors BHC. 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, AEG or BHC?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 20 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, AEG or BHC?
BHC 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, AEG or BHC?
The two are level on Momentum. 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, AEG or BHC?
AEG is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AEG on Risk Resilience, by 52 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 AEG more profitable than BHC?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 82.5% vs 71.8%; operating margin 3.7% vs 25.4%; ttm roe 12.2% vs 88.8%. AEG leads on one measure and BHC on two measures, and there is no single profitability composite that resolves the split — which of the two reads as "more profitable" depends on whether you weight pricing power or operating leverage.
Is BHC's lead over AEG getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-30, when BHC moved ahead of AEG.
What would change the AEG vs BHC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AEG closes the Quality gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; AEG's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; 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 AEG and BHC?
AEG: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. BHC: 1 bullish / 2 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 AEG is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BHC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AEG and BHC 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.