CLVT vs DHR Stock Comparison
Clarivate Plc vs Danaher Corporation
CLVT leads
CLVT leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from DHR.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support CLVT, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Clarivate Plc
Danaher Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CLVT over DHR, 54 versus 53 as of Sep 5, 2026. CLVT's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while DHR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. CLVT also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLVT today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CLVT lead: Reversed — DHR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLVT now leads by 1.
Compare Clarivate Plc and Danaher Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CLVT and DHR 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.
- Value30%75 vs 37CLVT +38
- Risk Resilience15%31 vs 59DHR +28
- Momentum25%52 vs 63DHR +11
- Quality30%46 vs 56DHR +10
2 of 6 evidence groups favor CLVT. CLVT’s edge is concentrated in value; DHR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
Largest factor move: Momentum -17
New signals
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -5
No new signals fired.
CLVT's lead narrowed by 3 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CLVT and DHR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CLVT (Clarivate Plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
DHR (Danaher Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, momentum, quality.
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
CLVTCLVT on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CLVTCLVT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CLVTCLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 points.
Momentum
DHRDHR on the Momentum factor, by 11 points.
Lower downside
DHRDHR on Risk Resilience, by 28 points.
Analyst upside
CLVTCLVT 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 | CLVT | DHR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +8.7% | +5.9% | CLVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +22.2% | +24.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Hold | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 1 | 12 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CLVT. 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 | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | Even | EPS growth -5.7% vs -15.2%; TTM ROE -7% vs 7.7%; gross margin 66.8% vs 58.5%; operating margin -3.5% vs 20.4% |
| Valuation | CLVT | Value 75 vs 37 |
| Technicals | DHR | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 3%; vs 200-day -19.2% vs 2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | DHR | Risk Resilience 31 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CLVT | Target upside 8.7% vs 5.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CLVT and DHR 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 1 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 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 CLVT.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4CLVT lead: Reversed — DHR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLVT now leads by 1.
- Today
- CLVT +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- DHR +2
- 53 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- DHR +4
- 51 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- DHR +3
- 51 vs 54
The lead changed hands 10 times in this window, most recently on Sep 1 when CLVT moved ahead of DHR.
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 (21.35%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (6.65%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.59%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
CLVT 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 down over the latest session (price -3.72%, AIQ -4 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -1.6%, 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.
- 1DHR closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLVT's edge.
- 2DHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3CLVT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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
Split| Metric | CLVT | DHR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.3% | 5.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.7% | -15.2% |
| Gross margin | 66.8% | 58.5% |
| Operating margin | -3.5% | 20.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7% | 7.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.94 | 0.51 |
Performance
DHR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CLVT | DHR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 2.5% | -3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 13.7% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -14.1% | 12.7% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -24.5% | 6.2% |
| Year to date | -38% | -9.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -50.1% | 4.1% |
Technicals
DHR has the stronger structure| Metric | CLVT | DHR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 62.5 | 55.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.4 | 19.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 3% |
| Price vs 200-day | -19.2% | 2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 54.5% | 30.7% |
Risk
DHR is the more resilient| Metric | CLVT | DHR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.93 | 0.41 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.66 | 0.17 |
| Sortino ratio | -1.09 | 0.25 |
| Max drawdown | -62.5% | -33.1% |
| Current drawdown | -53.8% | -14.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 74.7% | 31.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.4% | -2.6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CLVT or DHR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CLVT is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against DHR's 53. The edge comes from value. DHR 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 CLVT or DHR the better buy right now?
CLVT carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CLVT over DHR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CLVT leads Value by 38 points; DHR leads Risk Resilience by 28 points; DHR leads Momentum by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CLVT or DHR?
Analyst price targets imply +8.7% upside for CLVT and +5.9% for DHR, so the Street currently favors CLVT. 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, CLVT or DHR?
CLVT is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CLVT on the peer-relative Value factor, by 38 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, CLVT or DHR?
CLVT 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, CLVT or DHR?
DHR on the Momentum factor, by 11 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, CLVT or DHR?
DHR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DHR on Risk Resilience, by 28 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 CLVT more profitable than DHR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 66.8% vs 58.5%; operating margin -3.5% vs 20.4%; ttm roe -7% vs 7.7%. CLVT leads on one measure and DHR 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 CLVT's lead over DHR getting stronger or weaker?
CLVT lead: Reversed — DHR led by 4 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CLVT now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 10 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-01, when CLVT moved ahead of DHR.
What would change the CLVT vs DHR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DHR closes the Value gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to CLVT's edge; DHR's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; CLVT's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about CLVT and DHR?
CLVT: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. DHR: 1 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 CLVT is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On DHR it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CLVT and DHR 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.