CMI vs EMR Stock Comparison
CMI currently leads EMR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 58. The clearest difference is value, while EMR has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between CMI and EMR?
CMI leads the current stock comparison as Cummins Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Cummins Inc. vs Emerson Electric Co.
CMI leads
CMI leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from EMR.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CMI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cummins Inc.
Emerson Electric Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMI over EMR, 59 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. CMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while EMR holds the stronger momentum profile. CMI also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor CMI today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. CMI lead: Reversed — EMR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 1.
Compare Cummins Inc. and Emerson Electric Co. 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 CMI and EMR 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.
- Value59 vs 49CMI +10
- Momentum62 vs 72EMR +10
- Risk Resilience64 vs 59CMI +5
- Quality54 vs 56Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CMI. CMI’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; EMR keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +10
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
CMI's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CMI and EMR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMI (Cummins Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): 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 most heavily.
Growth
CMICMI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CMICMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 points.
Momentum
EMREMR on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
CMICMI on Risk Resilience, by 5 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 | CMI | EMR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +46.6% | +2.1% | CMI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.3% | +30.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CMI | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 7.66% | 1.29% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $5.283 | $2.005 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $7.640 | $2.138 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #154 | #341 |
CMI grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.66% a year against EMR's 1.29%. Neither company reduced its regular dividend in any year of the window.
Yield and payout ratio shown elsewhere on this page are current values, not part of the study window.
Split-adjusted regular dividends per share, 2020–2025, excluding special dividends. Research as of Sep 19, 2026.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 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 | 59 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | CMIon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 6.8%; EPS growth 42.7% vs 16.4%; TTM ROE 21.9% vs 12.7%; gross margin 25.3% vs 53.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 20.1% — CMI takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMI | Value 59 vs 49 |
| Technicals | EMR | Price vs 50-day -2% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day -11.3% vs 9.7% |
| Risk Resilience | CMI | Risk Resilience 64 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CMI | Target upside 46.6% vs 2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMI and EMR 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)
- 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)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (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 · Jun 21 – Oct 20CMI lead: Reversed — EMR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 1.
- Today
- CMI +1
- 59 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- Level
- 58 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- EMR +8
- 51 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- EMR +3
- 54 vs 57
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when CMI moved ahead of EMR.
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, conflicted
Only CMI
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (9.21%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only EMR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, 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.
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.12%, AIQ +2 points).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.65%, 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.
- 1EMR closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge.
- 2EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3CMI'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
CMI leads on balance| Metric | CMI | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 6.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.7% | 16.4% |
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 53.2% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 20.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.9% | 12.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 0.68 |
Performance
EMR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | CMI | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.3% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 1.9% | 4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -18.8% | 14.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -15.4% | 10.8% |
| Year to date | 5% | 20.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.9% | 24.5% |
Technicals
EMR has the stronger structure| Metric | CMI | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 60.5 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 40.5 | 11.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -2% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | -11.3% | 9.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.1% | 18.5% |
Risk
CMI is the more resilient| Metric | CMI | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.59 | 1.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.8 | 0.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.18 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -29% | -23.7% |
| Current drawdown | -26.3% | -2.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.7% | 31.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.3% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMI or EMR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMI is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 59 against EMR's 58. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. EMR 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 CMI or EMR the better buy right now?
CMI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 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 CMI over EMR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. CMI leads Value by 10 points; EMR leads Momentum by 10 points; CMI leads Risk Resilience by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMI or EMR?
Analyst price targets imply +46.6% upside for CMI and +2.1% for EMR, 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, CMI or EMR?
CMI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 10 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, CMI or EMR?
CMI 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, CMI or EMR?
EMR on the Momentum factor, by 10 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, CMI or EMR?
CMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMI 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 CMI more profitable than EMR?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.3% vs 53.2%; operating margin 11.1% vs 20.1%; ttm roe 21.9% vs 12.7%. CMI leads on one measure and EMR 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 CMI's lead over EMR getting stronger or weaker?
CMI lead: Reversed — EMR led by 8 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when CMI moved ahead of EMR.
What would change the CMI vs EMR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EMR closes the Value gap — currently 10 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge; EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; CMI'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 CMI and EMR?
CMI: 1 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. EMR: 3 bullish / 1 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 CMI is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EMR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMI and EMR 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.