BHC vs BMRN Stock Comparison
BHC currently leads BMRN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 76 vs 47. The clearest difference is quality, while BMRN has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between BHC and BMRN?
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
Bausch Health Companies Inc. vs BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
BHC leads
BHC leads by 29 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 33 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors BMRN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over BMRN, 76 versus 47 as of Oct 31, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while BMRN holds the stronger risk resilience profile. BHC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BMRN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BHC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bausch Health Companies Inc. and BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price return from daily closes; distributions are not included.
Price return comparison
Growth of $10,000, price only
Split-adjusted closes only. Distributions are excluded, which understates the return of any fund or stock that pays them.
Compare BHC and BMRN 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.
- Quality100 vs 51BHC +49
- Value75 vs 38BHC +37
- Momentum79 vs 47BHC +32
- Risk Resilience28 vs 54BMRN +26
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; BMRN 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 +11
New signals
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
BHC's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BHC and BMRN 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.
BMRN (BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, analyst expectations.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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 37 points.
Momentum
BHCBHC on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
BMRNBMRN on Risk Resilience, by 26 points.
Analyst upside
BMRNBMRN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors BHC, analyst targets favor BMRN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BHC | BMRN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.8% | +59% | BMRN has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | +79.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 17 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
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 | 76 vs 47 |
| Fundamentals | BHCon balance | revenue growth 13% vs 29.2%; EPS growth 117.7% vs -58.2%; TTM ROE 88.8% vs 1.2%; gross margin 71.8% vs 75.5%; operating margin 25.4% vs 8% — BHC takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 75 vs 38 |
| Technicals | BHC | Price vs 50-day 33% vs -4.1%; vs 200-day 19.6% vs -4.1% |
| Risk Resilience | BMRN | Risk Resilience 28 vs 54 |
| Analyst expectations | BMRN | Target upside 9.8% vs 59% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BHC and BMRN 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 29 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 29 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +29
- 76 vs 47
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +34
- 78 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- BHC +33
- 74 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- BHC +23
- 74 vs 51
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.
5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only BHC
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.96%)
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
No signal that the other name lacks.
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, Golden Cross 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.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.77%, 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.
- 1BMRN closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2BMRN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 29-point move would eliminate BHC'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
BHC leads on balance| Metric | BHC | BMRN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | 29.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 117.7% | -58.2% |
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 75.5% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | 8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 88.8% | 1.2% |
| Debt to equity | -11.73 | 0.66 |
Performance
BHC leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | BHC | BMRN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 7.3% | 1.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 18.7% | -6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.8% | -7.6% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 22.2% | 3.3% |
| Year to date | -0.4% | -5.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.8% | 2.8% |
Technicals
BHC has the stronger structure| Metric | BHC | BMRN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 78.2 | 55 |
| ADX (14) | 19 | 29.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 33% | -4.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19.6% | -4.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 45.7% | 28% |
Risk
BMRN is the more resilient| Metric | BHC | BMRN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.95 | 0.36 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.4 | 0.19 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | 0.43 |
| Max drawdown | -43.9% | -22.6% |
| Current drawdown | -12.4% | -20.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 57% | 35.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.6% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BHC or BMRN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 76 against BMRN's 47. The edge comes from quality and value. BMRN 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 BHC or BMRN 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 BMRN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BHC leads Quality by 49 points; BHC leads Value by 37 points; BHC leads Momentum by 32 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BHC or BMRN?
Analyst price targets imply +9.8% upside for BHC and +59% for BMRN, so the Street currently favors BMRN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors BHC. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, BHC or BMRN?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 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, BHC or BMRN?
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, BHC or BMRN?
BHC on the Momentum factor, by 32 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, BHC or BMRN?
BMRN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. BMRN on Risk Resilience, by 26 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 BHC more profitable than BMRN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 71.8% vs 75.5%; operating margin 25.4% vs 8%; ttm roe 88.8% vs 1.2%. BHC leads on two measures and BMRN on one measure, 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 BMRN getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 33 to 29 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 BHC vs BMRN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BMRN closes the Quality gap — currently 49 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; BMRN's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 29-point move would eliminate BHC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BHC and BMRN?
BHC: 5 bullish / 2 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted. BMRN: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 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 BHC is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On BMRN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare BHC and BMRN 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.