CARR vs CNH Stock Comparison
CARR currently leads CNH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 50 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality.
What is the main difference between CARR and CNH?
CARR leads the current stock comparison as Carrier Global Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Carrier Global Corporation vs CNH Industrial N.V.
CARR leads
CARR leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 2 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CARR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Carrier Global Corporation
CNH Industrial N.V.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CARR over CNH, 50 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. CARR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. CARR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CARR today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. CARR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions. CARR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Carrier Global Corporation and CNH Industrial N.V. 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 CARR and CNH 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.
- Quality36 vs 18CARR +18
- Momentum50 vs 36CARR +14
- Risk Resilience58 vs 48CARR +10
- Value59 vs 55CARR +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CARR. CARR’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CARR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CARR and CNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CARR (Carrier Global Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CNH (CNH Industrial N.V.): the counter-case, on fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 47.4% against 18.6%.
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
CARRCARR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CARRCARR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CARRCARR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
CARRCARR on the Momentum factor, by 14 points.
Lower downside
CARRCARR on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
CARRCARR 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 | CNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +27.5% | +19.4% | CARR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +26.4% | +54.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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 CARR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | CARR | 50 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | CNHon balance | revenue growth 18.9% vs 25.5%; EPS growth 106.9% vs 18.6%; TTM ROE 8.9% vs 4%; gross margin 24.3% vs 30.6%; operating margin 7.1% vs 13.7% — CNH takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CARR | Value 59 vs 55 |
| Technicals | CNH | Price vs 50-day -1.6% vs -7.1%; vs 200-day -9% vs 2.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CARR | Risk Resilience 58 vs 48 |
| Analyst expectations | CARR | Target upside 27.5% vs 19.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CARR and CNH 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 12 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 CARR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20CARR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- CARR +12
- 50 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- CARR +8
- 46 vs 38
- 30 sessions ago
- CARR +2
- 44 vs 42
- 90 sessions ago
- CARR +8
- 46 vs 38
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Aug 20 when CNH 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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CARR
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (7.62%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CNH
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (10.00%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.48%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: Bollinger Band Squeeze.
CARR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +0.53%, AIQ +3 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.17%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CARR's edge.
- 2CNH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CARR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
CNH leads on balance| Metric | CARR | CNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 18.9% | 25.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 106.9% | 18.6% |
| Gross margin | 24.3% | 30.6% |
| Operating margin | 7.1% | 13.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.9% | 4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 3.39 |
Performance
CNH leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CARR | CNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.1% | -5.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.6% | -15.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -17.5% | 7.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -9% | 7% |
| Year to date | 6.3% | 25.2% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -1.7% | 10.4% |
Technicals
CNH has the stronger structure| Metric | CARR | CNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 59.5 | 36.2 |
| ADX (14) | 17.8 | 24.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.6% | -7.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -9% | 2.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.6% | 47.4% |
Risk
CARR is the more resilient| Metric | CARR | CNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.31 | 1.11 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.07 | 0.36 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.09 | 0.64 |
| Max drawdown | -29.1% | -24.8% |
| Current drawdown | -26.1% | -19.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 35.6% | 43.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -3.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CARR or CNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CARR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 50 against CNH's 38. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 CNH the better buy right now?
CARR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 CARR over CNH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CARR leads Quality by 18 points; CARR leads Momentum by 14 points; CARR leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. CARR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by CNH simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, CARR or CNH?
Analyst price targets imply +27.5% upside for CARR and +19.4% for CNH, so the Street currently favors CARR. 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 CNH?
CARR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CARR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, CARR or CNH?
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 CNH?
CARR on the Momentum factor, by 14 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, CARR or CNH?
CARR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CARR on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 CARR more profitable than CNH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 24.3% vs 30.6%; operating margin 7.1% vs 13.7%; ttm roe 8.9% vs 4%. CARR leads on one measure and CNH on two measures, 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 CARR's lead over CNH getting stronger or weaker?
CARR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 2 to 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-20, when CNH moved ahead of CARR.
What would change the CARR vs CNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 18 points behind, the largest single contributor to CARR's edge; CNH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CARR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 CARR and CNH?
CARR: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. CNH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 CARR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On CNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CARR and CNH 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.