CARR vs CMI Stock Comparison
Carrier Global Corporation vs Cummins Inc.
CMI leads
CMI leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 8 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support CMI, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carrier Global Corporation
Cummins Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMI over CARR, 46 versus 43 as of Sep 5, 2026. CMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while CARR holds the stronger momentum profile. CMI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. CMI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Carrier Global Corporation and Cummins Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CARR and CMI 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.
- Quality30%36 vs 54CMI +18
- Momentum25%25 vs 10CARR +15
- Risk Resilience15%57 vs 63CMI +6
- Value30%59 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor CMI. CMI’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; CARR keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-03, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-02.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
CMI's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CARR and CMI both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMI (Cummins Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
CARR (Carrier Global Corporation): 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
CMICMI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CARRCARR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EvenThe two are level on Value.
Momentum
CARRCARR on the Momentum factor, by 15 points.
Lower downside
CMICMI on Risk Resilience, by 6 points.
Analyst upside
CMICMI 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 | CARR | CMI | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +25.3% | +42.3% | CMI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.1% | +25.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 10 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMI. 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 | 43 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | CMIon balance | revenue growth 18.9% vs 12.6%; EPS growth 106.9% vs 42.7%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 21.9%; gross margin 24.3% vs 25.3%; operating margin 7.1% vs 11.1% — CMI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | Even | Value 59 vs 59 |
| Technicals | CARR | Price vs 50-day -8.2% vs -11.8%; vs 200-day -3.7% vs -8% |
| Risk Resilience | CMI | Risk Resilience 57 vs 63 |
| Analyst expectations | CMI | Target upside 25.3% vs 42.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CARR and CMI 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 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (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 CMI.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 22 – Sep 3CMI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CMI +3
- 43 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- CMI +2
- 42 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- CMI +8
- 44 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- CMI +6
- 52 vs 58
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Jul 15 when CMI moved ahead of CARR.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.04%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.10%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
CMI 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 +1.07%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.8%, 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.
- 1CARR closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge.
- 2CARR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3CMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate CMI'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
CMI leads on balance| Metric | CARR | CMI |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | 12.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.9% | 42.7% |
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 25.3% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 11.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 21.9% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 0.64 |
Performance
CARR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CARR | CMI |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.4% | -4.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -7.6% | -13.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -13.8% | -16.4% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -2.2% | -1.9% |
| Year to date | 11.8% | 6.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7% | 38% |
Technicals
CARR has the stronger structure| Metric | CARR | CMI |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.1 | 15.1 |
| ADX (14) | 32.7 | 48.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -8.2% | -11.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -3.7% | -8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 17.7% | 20.6% |
Risk
CMI is the more resilient| Metric | CARR | CMI |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.26 | 1.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.98 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.13 | 1.43 |
| Max drawdown | -24.7% | -25% |
| Current drawdown | -22.3% | -25% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 36.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CARR or CMI?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 46 against CARR's 43. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. CARR 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 CARR or CMI the better buy right now?
CMI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 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 CMI over CARR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CMI leads Quality by 18 points; CARR leads Momentum by 15 points; CMI leads Risk Resilience by 6 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CARR or CMI?
Analyst price targets imply +25.3% upside for CARR and +42.3% for CMI, so the Street currently favors CMI. 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, CARR or CMI?
Neither name separates on the peer-relative Value factor. The two are level on Value. 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, CARR or CMI?
CARR 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, CARR or CMI?
CARR on the Momentum factor, by 15 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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, CARR or CMI?
CMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMI on Risk Resilience, by 6 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is CARR more profitable than CMI?
CMI leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 24.3% vs 25.3%; operating margin 7.1% vs 11.1%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 21.9%.
Is CMI's lead over CARR getting stronger or weaker?
CMI lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 8 to 3 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-22 and 2026-09-03. The lead has changed hands 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-15, when CMI moved ahead of CARR.
What would change the CARR vs CMI verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CARR closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge; CARR's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; CMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 5 points over 30 sessions, and a further 3-point move would eliminate CMI's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about CARR and CMI?
CARR: 2 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. CMI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, 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 CARR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On CMI it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CARR and CMI with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.