CMI vs ETN Stock Comparison
Cummins Inc. vs Eaton Corporation plc
CMI leads
CMI leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, having only recently taken the lead back from ETN.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support CMI, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Cummins Inc.
Eaton Corporation plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors CMI over ETN, 46 versus 38 as of Sep 5, 2026. CMI's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while ETN 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 lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. CMI lead: Reversed — ETN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 8.
Compare Cummins Inc. and Eaton Corporation plc across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare CMI and ETN 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%59 vs 38CMI +21
- Risk Resilience15%63 vs 52CMI +11
- Momentum25%10 vs 15ETN +5
- Quality30%54 vs 50CMI +4
4 of 6 evidence groups favor CMI. CMI’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; ETN keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
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 — CMI and ETN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
CMI (Cummins Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ETN (Eaton Corporation plc): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 32% against 20.6%.
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
CMICMI on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
CMICMI on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CMICMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
ETNETN on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
CMICMI on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 | ETN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +42.3% | +18.4% | CMI has more room |
| Target dispersion | +25.2% | +18.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 10 | 6 | 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 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 | CMI | 46 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | ETNon balance | revenue growth 12.6% vs 14.5%; EPS growth 42.7% vs -5.4%; TTM ROE 21.9% vs 19.6%; gross margin 25.3% vs 35.9%; operating margin 11.1% vs 17.7% — ETN takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CMI | Value 59 vs 38 |
| Technicals | ETN | Price vs 50-day -11.8% vs -1.1%; vs 200-day -8% vs 4.3% |
| Risk Resilience | CMI | Risk Resilience 63 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | CMI | Target upside 42.3% vs 18.4% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CMI and ETN 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 moderate at 8 points.
- 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)
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 23 – Sep 4CMI lead: Reversed — ETN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 8.
- Today
- CMI +8
- 46 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- CMI +7
- 44 vs 37
- 30 sessions ago
- ETN +3
- 52 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- CMI +7
- 57 vs 50
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.
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
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.14%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
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 +2.8%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.46%, 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.
- 1ETN closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge.
- 2ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3CMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
ETN leads on balance| Metric | CMI | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 12.6% | 14.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.7% | -5.4% |
| Gross margin | 25.3% | 35.9% |
| Operating margin | 11.1% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 21.9% | 19.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.64 | 1.05 |
Performance
ETN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CMI | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.9% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -13.8% | -11.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.4% | -5.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -1.9% | 11.9% |
| Year to date | 6.9% | 24.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 38% | 15.5% |
Technicals
ETN has the stronger structure| Metric | CMI | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 15.1 | 23.9 |
| ADX (14) | 48.6 | 17.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -11.8% | -1.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -8% | 4.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 32% |
Risk
CMI is the more resilient| Metric | CMI | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.6 | 1.75 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.98 | 0.47 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.43 | 0.69 |
| Max drawdown | -25% | -18.6% |
| Current drawdown | -25% | -13.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 36.7% | 38.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.2% | -4.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CMI or ETN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, CMI is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 46 against ETN's 38. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. ETN 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 ETN the better buy right now?
CMI carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor CMI over ETN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. CMI leads Value by 21 points; CMI leads Risk Resilience by 11 points; ETN leads Momentum by 5 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CMI or ETN?
Analyst price targets imply +42.3% upside for CMI and +18.4% for ETN, 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 ETN?
CMI is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CMI on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 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 ETN?
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 ETN?
ETN on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, CMI or ETN?
CMI is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. CMI on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 CMI more profitable than ETN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 25.3% vs 35.9%; operating margin 11.1% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 21.9% vs 19.6%. CMI leads on one measure and ETN 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 ETN getting stronger or weaker?
CMI lead: Reversed — ETN led by 3 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; CMI now leads by 8. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CMI vs ETN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETN closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to CMI's edge; ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; CMI's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 CMI and ETN?
CMI: 2 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted. ETN: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 CMI is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ETN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CMI and ETN 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.