AMGN vs GIS Stock Comparison
Compare AMGN and GIS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between AMGN and GIS?
AMGN leads the current stock comparison as Amgen Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Amgen Inc. vs General Mills, Inc.
AMGN leads
AMGN leads by 11 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 5 of 6 evidence groups support AMGN, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Amgen Inc.
General Mills, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors AMGN over GIS, 44 versus 33 as of Sep 11, 2026. AMGN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GIS holds the stronger value profile. AMGN also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor AMGN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. AMGN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Amgen Inc. and General Mills, 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 AMGN and GIS 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.
- Quality70 vs 17AMGN +53
- Value44 vs 60GIS +16
- Risk Resilience39 vs 28AMGN +11
- Momentum15 vs 24GIS +9
5 of 6 evidence groups favor AMGN. AMGN’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GIS keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Compression — neutral, trend, medium horizon
AMGN's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — AMGN and GIS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
AMGN (Amgen Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GIS (General Mills, Inc.): the counter-case, on value, momentum, valuation.
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
AMGNAMGN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
AMGNAMGN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GISGIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
GISGIS on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
AMGNAMGN on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
AMGNAMGN 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 | GIS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -0.2% | -1.5% | AMGN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +61.1% | +36.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 18 | 11 | 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 AMGN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | AMGN | 44 vs 33 |
| Fundamentals | AMGN | revenue growth 16.7% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 30.6% vs -7.6%; gross margin 72.7% vs 33.4%; operating margin 33.2% vs 20% |
| Valuation | GIS | Value 44 vs 60 |
| Technicals | AMGN | Price vs 50-day -5.4% vs -5.3%; vs 200-day 6.5% vs -9.5% |
| Risk Resilience | AMGN | Risk Resilience 39 vs 28 |
| Analyst expectations | AMGN | Target upside -0.2% vs -1.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of AMGN and GIS 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 moderate at 11 points.
- 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 is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 AMGN.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10AMGN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- AMGN +11
- 44 vs 33
- 7 sessions ago
- AMGN +16
- 58 vs 42
- 30 sessions ago
- AMGN +17
- 63 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- AMGN +17
- 61 vs 44
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.
4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (11.03%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
AMGN 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 -1.34%, AIQ 0 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.31%, 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.
- 1GIS closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMGN's edge.
- 2GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3AMGN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate AMGN'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
AMGN leads on balance| Metric | AMGN | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 16.7% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.6% | -7.6% |
| Gross margin | 72.7% | 33.4% |
| Operating margin | 33.2% | 20% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 89.3% | -1% |
| Debt to equity | 4.9 | 1.84 |
Performance
AMGN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | AMGN | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.5% | -9.7% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -8.1% | -5.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.2% | 6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 1.3% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | 16.9% | -22.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 36.5% | -28.3% |
Technicals
AMGN has the stronger structure| Metric | AMGN | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 24.4 | 31.4 |
| ADX (14) | 40 | 23.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -5.4% | -5.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 6.5% | -9.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 40.9% | 35.5% |
Risk
AMGN is the more resilient| Metric | AMGN | GIS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.54 | -0.28 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.07 | -1.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.64 | -1.82 |
| Max drawdown | -16.6% | -37.1% |
| Current drawdown | -13.9% | -29.6% |
| Annualized volatility | 29.6% | 28.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, AMGN or GIS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, AMGN is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 44 against GIS's 33. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GIS is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 GIS the better buy right now?
AMGN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor AMGN over GIS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. AMGN leads Quality by 53 points; GIS leads Value by 16 points; AMGN leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, AMGN or GIS?
Analyst price targets imply -0.2% upside for AMGN and -1.5% for GIS, so the Street currently favors AMGN. 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 GIS?
GIS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GIS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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 GIS?
AMGN 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 GIS?
GIS on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 GIS?
AMGN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. AMGN on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 GIS?
AMGN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 72.7% vs 33.4%; operating margin 33.2% vs 20%; ttm roe 89.3% vs -1%.
Is AMGN's lead over GIS getting stronger or weaker?
AMGN lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 11 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the AMGN vs GIS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GIS closes the Quality gap — currently 53 points behind, the largest single contributor to AMGN's edge; GIS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; AMGN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 11-point move would eliminate AMGN's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about AMGN and GIS?
AMGN: 4 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. GIS: 1 bullish / 4 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 GIS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare AMGN and GIS 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.