AMGN vs BHC Stock Comparison
BHC currently leads AMGN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 63. The clearest difference is value, while AMGN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between AMGN and BHC?
BHC leads the current stock comparison as Bausch Health Companies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amgen Inc. vs Bausch Health Companies Inc.
BHC leads
BHC leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amgen Inc.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over AMGN, 76 versus 63 as of Oct 31, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while AMGN 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 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amgen Inc. and Bausch Health Companies 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 AMGN 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.
- Value44 vs 75BHC +31
- Quality70 vs 100BHC +30
- Risk Resilience46 vs 28AMGN +18
- Momentum87 vs 79AMGN +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; AMGN keeps a meaningful risk resilience 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.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
BHC's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMGN and BHC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
BHC (Bausch Health Companies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
AMGN (Amgen Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, 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
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 31 points.
Momentum
AMGNAMGN on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
AMGNAMGN on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 | AMGN | BHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -14.8% | +9.8% | BHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +68% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 19 | 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 | 63 vs 76 |
| Fundamentals | AMGNon balance | revenue growth 16.7% vs 13%; EPS growth 30.6% vs 117.7%; TTM ROE 89.3% vs 88.8%; gross margin 72.7% vs 71.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 25.4% — AMGN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 44 vs 75 |
| Technicals | BHC | Price vs 50-day 11.2% vs 33%; vs 200-day 21% vs 19.6% |
| Risk Resilience | AMGN | Risk Resilience 46 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | BHC | Target upside -14.8% vs 9.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMGN 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +13
- 63 vs 76
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +15
- 63 vs 78
- 30 sessions ago
- BHC +13
- 61 vs 74
- 90 sessions ago
- BHC +11
- 63 vs 74
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only AMGN
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BHC
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +1.15%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -7.97%, AIQ +1 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.
- 1AMGN closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2AMGN's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
AMGN leads on balance| Metric | AMGN | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 13% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.6% | 117.7% |
| Gross margin | 72.7% | 71.8% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 25.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 89.3% | 88.8% |
| Debt to equity | 4.9 | -11.73 |
Performance
AMGN leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | AMGN | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.1% | 7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 7.2% | 18.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 16.6% | 14.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 33.7% | 22.2% |
| Year to date | 35.8% | -0.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 54.9% | 10.8% |
Technicals
BHC has the stronger structure| Metric | AMGN | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 74.9 | 78.2 |
| ADX (14) | 30.3 | 19 |
| Price vs 50-day | 11.2% | 33% |
| Price vs 200-day | 21% | 19.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 28.6% | 45.7% |
Risk
AMGN is the more resilient| Metric | AMGN | BHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.46 | 0.95 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.49 | 0.4 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.28 | 0.76 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -43.9% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -12.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.6% | 57% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.3% | -4.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMGN or BHC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 76 against AMGN's 63. The edge comes from value and quality. AMGN 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 AMGN or BHC the better buy right now?
BHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 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 AMGN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BHC leads Value by 31 points; BHC leads Quality by 30 points; AMGN leads Risk Resilience by 18 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMGN or BHC?
Analyst price targets imply -14.8% upside for AMGN and +9.8% 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, AMGN or BHC?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 31 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, AMGN 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, AMGN or BHC?
AMGN on the Momentum factor, by 8 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, AMGN or BHC?
AMGN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMGN on Risk Resilience, by 18 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 AMGN more profitable than BHC?
AMGN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.7% vs 71.8%; operating margin 33.2% vs 25.4%; ttm roe 89.3% vs 88.8%.
Is BHC's lead over AMGN getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMGN vs BHC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: AMGN closes the Value gap — currently 31 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; AMGN's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 AMGN and BHC?
AMGN: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. BHC: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 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 AMGN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BHC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare AMGN 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.