CAH vs UHS Stock Comparison
Compare CAH and UHS across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CAH and UHS?
UHS leads the current stock comparison as Universal Health Services, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cardinal Health, Inc. vs Universal Health Services, Inc.
UHS leads
UHS leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Value, but the lead has narrowed from 17 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support UHS, and its lead is narrowing.
Cardinal Health, Inc.
Universal Health Services, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors UHS over CAH, 65 versus 52 as of Sep 11, 2026. UHS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and value, while CAH holds the stronger momentum profile. UHS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor UHS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Cardinal Health, Inc. and Universal Health Services, 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 CAH and UHS 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.
- Quality32 vs 70UHS +38
- Value57 vs 73UHS +16
- Momentum69 vs 53CAH +16
- Risk Resilience55 vs 60UHS +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor UHS. UHS’s edge is concentrated in quality and value; CAH keeps a meaningful momentum 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
New signals
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
UHS's lead narrowed by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CAH and UHS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
UHS (Universal Health Services, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and value.
CAH (Cardinal Health, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals.
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
UHSUHS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
UHSUHS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
UHSUHS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
CAHCAH on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
UHSUHS on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | CAH | UHS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +14.4% | +15.4% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +19.4% | +71.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 9 | 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 UHS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | UHS | 52 vs 65 |
| Fundamentals | UHSon balance | revenue growth 4.8% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 1.2% vs 5.3%; TTM ROE -59.7% vs 20.7%; gross margin 3.8% vs 90.7%; operating margin 1% vs 11.4% — UHS takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | UHS | Value 57 vs 73 |
| Technicals | CAH | Price vs 50-day 0.1% vs 6%; vs 200-day 9.2% vs -6.7% |
| Risk Resilience | UHS | Risk Resilience 55 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 14.4% vs 15.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CAH and UHS 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 UHS.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- UHS +13
- 52 vs 65
- 7 sessions ago
- UHS +9
- 55 vs 64
- 30 sessions ago
- UHS +17
- 51 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- UHS +18
- 54 vs 72
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.37%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 2 bearish
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (12.35%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CAH is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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 -0.61%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.22%, 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.
- 1CAH closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge.
- 2CAH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate UHS'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
UHS leads on balance| Metric | CAH | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.8% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 1.2% | 5.3% |
| Gross margin | 3.8% | 90.7% |
| Operating margin | 1% | 11.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -59.7% | 20.7% |
| Debt to equity | -3.45 | 0.7 |
Performance
CAH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CAH | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.9% | 3.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 0.8% | 0.2% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.1% | 19.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 9.6% | -7.3% |
| Year to date | 14.9% | -20.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 57.1% | -7% |
Technicals
CAH has the stronger structure| Metric | CAH | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.3 | 49.8 |
| ADX (14) | 27.8 | 15.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.1% | 6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.2% | -6.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.2% | 23.2% |
Risk
UHS is the more resilient| Metric | CAH | UHS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.06 | 0.24 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.51 | -0.2 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.72 | -0.25 |
| Max drawdown | -20.6% | -42.2% |
| Current drawdown | -5.1% | -29.3% |
| Annualized volatility | 30% | 32.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.5% | -2.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CAH or UHS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, UHS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 65 against CAH's 52. The edge comes from quality and value. CAH is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 CAH or UHS the better buy right now?
UHS 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 UHS over CAH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. UHS leads Quality by 38 points; UHS leads Value by 16 points; CAH leads Momentum by 16 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CAH or UHS?
Analyst price targets imply +14.4% upside for CAH and +15.4% for UHS. 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, CAH or UHS?
UHS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. UHS 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, CAH or UHS?
UHS 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, CAH or UHS?
CAH on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, CAH or UHS?
UHS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. UHS on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 CAH more profitable than UHS?
UHS leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 3.8% vs 90.7%; operating margin 1% vs 11.4%; ttm roe -59.7% vs 20.7%.
Is UHS's lead over CAH getting stronger or weaker?
UHS lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 13 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 CAH vs UHS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CAH closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to UHS's edge; CAH generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; UHS starts generating bearish momentum or trend signals; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate UHS's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CAH and UHS?
CAH: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. UHS: 0 bullish / 2 bearish. 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 CAH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UHS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CAH and UHS 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.