BHC vs SPWR Stock Comparison
Compare BHC and SPWR across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between BHC and SPWR?
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 SunPower Inc.
BHC leads
BHC leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 16 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors SPWR on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support BHC, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bausch Health Companies Inc.
SunPower Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors BHC over SPWR, 68 versus 60 as of Sep 11, 2026. BHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while SPWR 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 SPWR. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor BHC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. BHC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Bausch Health Companies Inc. and SunPower 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 BHC and SPWR 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 78BHC +22
- Value75 vs 65BHC +10
- Risk Resilience23 vs 30SPWR +7
- Momentum48 vs 52SPWR +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor BHC. BHC’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; SPWR 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 -1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +2
No new signals fired.
BHC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BHC and SPWR 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.
SPWR (SunPower Inc.): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 234.3% against 48.2%.
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 10 points.
Momentum
SPWRSPWR on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
SPWRSPWR on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
SPWRSPWR 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 SPWR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BHC | SPWR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +36.5% | +1682% | SPWR has more room |
| Target dispersion | 0% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 1 | 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 | 68 vs 60 |
| Fundamentals | BHC | revenue growth 13% vs -24.6%; EPS growth 117.7% vs -80.9%; TTM ROE 88.8% vs 26.1%; gross margin 71.8% vs 48.8%; operating margin 25.4% vs -24.5% |
| Valuation | BHC | Value 75 vs 65 |
| Technicals | BHC | Price vs 50-day 1.5% vs -15.5%; vs 200-day 3.6% vs -67.7% |
| Risk Resilience | SPWR | Risk Resilience 23 vs 30 |
| Analyst expectations | SPWR | Target upside 36.5% vs 1682% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BHC and SPWR 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 8 points.
- 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
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10BHC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- BHC +8
- 68 vs 60
- 7 sessions ago
- BHC +9
- 71 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- BHC +16
- 74 vs 58
- 90 sessions ago
- BHC +9
- 66 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Jun 5 when BHC moved ahead of SPWR.
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 / 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%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (172.10%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (14.04%)
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 -3.46%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -3.77%, 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.
- 1SPWR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge.
- 2SPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-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 | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 13% | -24.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 117.7% | -80.9% |
| Gross margin | 71.8% | 48.8% |
| Operating margin | 25.4% | -24.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 88.8% | 26.1% |
| Debt to equity | -11.73 | -5.03 |
Performance
BHC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | BHC | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -11.1% | 31.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.3% | 34.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 17.9% | -55.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.8% | -74.8% |
| Year to date | -12.7% | -77.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -17.2% | -76.7% |
Technicals
BHC has the stronger structure| Metric | BHC | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 34.5 | 62.7 |
| ADX (14) | 29.1 | 23.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.5% | -15.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.6% | -67.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 48.2% | 234.3% |
Risk
SPWR is the more resilient| Metric | BHC | SPWR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.03 | 2.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.11 | -0.82 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.2 | -1.29 |
| Max drawdown | -43.9% | -89.7% |
| Current drawdown | -23.2% | -83.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 56.4% | 109.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.8% | -9.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BHC or SPWR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, BHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 68 against SPWR's 60. The edge comes from quality and value. SPWR 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 SPWR the better buy right now?
BHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 BHC over SPWR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. BHC leads Quality by 22 points; BHC leads Value by 10 points; SPWR leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BHC or SPWR?
Analyst price targets imply +36.5% upside for BHC and +1682% for SPWR, so the Street currently favors SPWR. 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 SPWR?
BHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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 SPWR?
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 SPWR?
SPWR on the Momentum factor, by 4 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 SPWR?
SPWR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. SPWR 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 BHC more profitable than SPWR?
BHC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 71.8% vs 48.8%; operating margin 25.4% vs -24.5%; ttm roe 88.8% vs 26.1%.
Is BHC's lead over SPWR getting stronger or weaker?
BHC lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 16 to 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-06-05, when BHC moved ahead of SPWR.
What would change the BHC vs SPWR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: SPWR closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to BHC's edge; SPWR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; BHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 8 points over 30 sessions, and a further 8-point move would eliminate BHC's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about BHC and SPWR?
BHC: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. SPWR: 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 BHC is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On SPWR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BHC and SPWR 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.