BMY vs HLN Stock Comparison
HLN currently leads BMY in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 62 vs 59. The clearest difference is momentum, while BMY has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between BMY and HLN?
HLN leads the current stock comparison as Haleon plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company vs Haleon plc
HLN leads
HLN leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from BMY. Wall Street currently favors BMY on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support HLN, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Bristol-Myers Squibb Company
Haleon plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors HLN over BMY, 62 versus 59 as of Oct 21, 2026. HLN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and risk resilience, while BMY holds the stronger quality profile. HLN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors BMY. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLN today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. HLN lead: Reversed — BMY led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 3.
Compare Bristol-Myers Squibb Company and Haleon plc 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 BMY and HLN 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.
- Momentum47 vs 79HLN +32
- Quality71 vs 62BMY +9
- Value65 vs 56BMY +9
- Risk Resilience41 vs 48HLN +7
2 of 6 evidence groups favor HLN. HLN’s edge is concentrated in momentum and risk resilience; BMY keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +18
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
HLN's lead narrowed by 5 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — BMY and HLN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
HLN (Haleon plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and risk resilience.
BMY (Bristol-Myers Squibb Company): the counter-case, on quality, value, fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 35.8% against 24.4%.
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
HLNHLN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
BMYBMY on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
BMYBMY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
HLNHLN on the Momentum factor, by 32 points.
Lower downside
HLNHLN on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
BMYBMY on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors HLN, analyst targets favor BMY. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | BMY | HLN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7.2% | +1.8% | BMY has more room |
| Target dispersion | +62.6% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor HLN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 59 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | BMY | TTM ROE 46.8% vs 9.9%; gross margin 70.2% vs 65.6%; operating margin 28.3% vs 21.4% |
| Valuation | BMY | Value 65 vs 56 |
| Technicals | HLN | Price vs 50-day -3.5% vs 5%; vs 200-day 3.3% vs 4% |
| Risk Resilience | HLN | Risk Resilience 41 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | BMY | Target upside 7.2% vs 1.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of BMY and HLN 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 narrow at 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 HLN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20HLN lead: Reversed — BMY led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 3.
- Today
- HLN +3
- 59 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- HLN +4
- 58 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- BMY +6
- 58 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- BMY +16
- 65 vs 49
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Oct 12 when HLN moved ahead of BMY.
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.
2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only BMY
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.06%)
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only HLN
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (2.45%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze, MACD Bullish Crossover.
HLN 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 5 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.91%, AIQ +5 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -1.47%, 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.
- 1BMY closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLN's edge.
- 2BMY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3HLN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
BMY leads on balance| Metric | BMY | HLN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.9% | 0% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 23.7% | 0% |
| Gross margin | 70.2% | 65.6% |
| Operating margin | 28.3% | 21.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 46.8% | 9.9% |
| Debt to equity | 1.93 | 0.5 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | BMY | HLN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 8.8% | 7.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -0.9% | 9.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 1.5% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 6.7% |
| Year to date | 14.3% | 0.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 42.2% | 10.5% |
Technicals
HLN has the stronger structure| Metric | BMY | HLN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 47.8 | 81.6 |
| ADX (14) | 19.7 | 27.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -3.5% | 5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 3.3% | 4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 35.8% | 24.4% |
Risk
HLN is the more resilient| Metric | BMY | HLN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.19 | -0.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.23 | 0.25 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.22 | 0.42 |
| Max drawdown | -16.8% | -22.8% |
| Current drawdown | -9.4% | -9.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 28.3% | 23.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, BMY or HLN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, HLN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 62 against BMY's 59. The edge comes from momentum and risk resilience. BMY is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 BMY or HLN the better buy right now?
HLN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor HLN over BMY?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. HLN leads Momentum by 32 points; BMY leads Quality by 9 points; BMY leads Value by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, BMY or HLN?
Analyst price targets imply +7.2% upside for BMY and +1.8% for HLN, so the Street currently favors BMY. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors HLN. 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, BMY or HLN?
BMY is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. BMY on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, BMY or HLN?
BMY 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, BMY or HLN?
HLN 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, BMY or HLN?
HLN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. HLN 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 BMY more profitable than HLN?
BMY leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 70.2% vs 65.6%; operating margin 28.3% vs 21.4%; ttm roe 46.8% vs 9.9%.
Is HLN's lead over BMY getting stronger or weaker?
HLN lead: Reversed — BMY led by 6 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; HLN now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-12, when HLN moved ahead of BMY.
What would change the BMY vs HLN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: BMY closes the Momentum gap — currently 32 points behind, the largest single contributor to HLN's edge; BMY's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; HLN's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 BMY and HLN?
BMY: 2 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. HLN: 2 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 BMY is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On HLN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare BMY and HLN 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.