CNH vs EMR Stock Comparison
EMR currently leads CNH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 38. The clearest difference is quality, while CNH has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between CNH and EMR?
EMR leads the current stock comparison as Emerson Electric Co., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
CNH Industrial N.V. vs Emerson Electric Co.
EMR leads
EMR leads by 20 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 17 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CNH on target upside.
Stable: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EMR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
CNH Industrial N.V.
Emerson Electric Co.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMR over CNH, 58 versus 38 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while CNH holds the stronger value profile. EMR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CNH. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
Compare CNH Industrial N.V. 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 CNH 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.
- Quality18 vs 56EMR +38
- Momentum36 vs 72EMR +36
- Risk Resilience48 vs 59EMR +11
- Value55 vs 49CNH +6
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EMR. EMR’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; CNH keeps a meaningful value 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 +12
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
EMR's lead narrowed by 2 AIQ points in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CNH and EMR both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
CNH (CNH Industrial N.V.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 47.4% against 18.5%.
The AIQ Score and Wall Street therefore point in different directions on this pair.
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
EMREMR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CNHCNH on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
CNHCNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 points.
Momentum
EMREMR on the Momentum factor, by 36 points.
Lower downside
EMREMR on Risk Resilience, by 11 points.
Analyst upside
CNHCNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EMR, analyst targets favor CNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CNH | EMR | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.4% | +2.1% | CNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +54.5% | +30.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
The two are measuring different things. The AIQ Score reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; analyst targets price forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something already priced in — it is worth resolving before acting on either.
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EMR | 38 vs 58 |
| Fundamentals | EMRon balance | revenue growth 25.5% vs 6.8%; EPS growth 18.6% vs 16.4%; TTM ROE 4% vs 12.7%; gross margin 30.6% vs 53.2%; operating margin 13.7% vs 20.1% — EMR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | CNH | Value 55 vs 49 |
| Technicals | EMR | Price vs 50-day -7.1% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 2.3% vs 9.7% |
| Risk Resilience | EMR | Risk Resilience 48 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | CNH | Target upside 19.4% vs 2.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CNH and EMR and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 20 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 EMR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 20 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMR +20
- 38 vs 58
- 7 sessions ago
- EMR +20
- 38 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- EMR +17
- 42 vs 59
- 90 sessions ago
- EMR +19
- 38 vs 57
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when CNH 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 / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only CNH
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.48%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only EMR
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
EMR 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 is down while the AIQ Score moved up 3 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -0.17%, AIQ +3 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.
- 1CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge.
- 2CNH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EMR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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
EMR leads on balance| Metric | CNH | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 25.5% | 6.8% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 18.6% | 16.4% |
| Gross margin | 30.6% | 53.2% |
| Operating margin | 13.7% | 20.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4% | 12.7% |
| Debt to equity | 3.39 | 0.68 |
Performance
EMR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | CNH | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.2% | -1.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -15.6% | 4.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 7.9% | 14.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 7% | 10.8% |
| Year to date | 25.2% | 20.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 10.4% | 24.5% |
Technicals
EMR has the stronger structure| Metric | CNH | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 36.2 | 63.3 |
| ADX (14) | 24.5 | 11.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -7.1% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 2.3% | 9.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 47.4% | 18.5% |
Risk
EMR is the more resilient| Metric | CNH | EMR |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.11 | 1.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.36 | 0.72 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.64 | 1.12 |
| Max drawdown | -24.8% | -23.7% |
| Current drawdown | -19.9% | -2.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 43.3% | 31.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.8% | -3.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CNH or EMR?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against CNH's 38. The edge comes from quality and momentum. CNH is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 CNH or EMR the better buy right now?
EMR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMR over CNH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EMR leads Quality by 38 points; EMR leads Momentum by 36 points; EMR leads Risk Resilience by 11 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CNH or EMR?
Analyst price targets imply +19.4% upside for CNH and +2.1% for EMR, so the Street currently favors CNH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EMR. The two are measuring different things: the model reads current fundamentals, valuation, trend and risk; the Street is pricing forward expectations. A divergence of this kind is either a contrarian opportunity or a sign the model is missing something the analysts have already priced — it is the single most useful row on this page to investigate. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, CNH or EMR?
CNH is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. CNH on the peer-relative Value factor, by 6 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, CNH or EMR?
CNH 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, CNH or EMR?
EMR on the Momentum factor, by 36 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, CNH or EMR?
EMR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMR on Risk Resilience, by 11 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 CNH more profitable than EMR?
EMR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 30.6% vs 53.2%; operating margin 13.7% vs 20.1%; ttm roe 4% vs 12.7%.
Is EMR's lead over CNH getting stronger or weaker?
EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 17 to 20 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 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when CNH moved ahead of EMR.
What would change the CNH vs EMR verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CNH closes the Quality gap — currently 38 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge; CNH's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EMR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 bullish and 1 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 CNH and EMR?
CNH: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, 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 CNH is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EMR it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare CNH 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.