CRL vs GEHC Stock Comparison
Compare CRL and GEHC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between CRL and GEHC?
GEHC leads the current stock comparison as GE HealthCare Technologies Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. vs GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
GEHC leads
GEHC leads by 12 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality.
Competitive: 5 of 6 evidence groups support GEHC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GEHC over CRL, 49 versus 37 as of Sep 11, 2026. GEHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while CRL holds the stronger momentum profile. GEHC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEHC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GEHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Charles River Laboratories International, Inc. and GE HealthCare Technologies Inc. across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare CRL and GEHC 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.
- Value42 vs 65GEHC +23
- Quality29 vs 51GEHC +22
- Momentum34 vs 21CRL +13
- Risk Resilience50 vs 59GEHC +9
5 of 6 evidence groups favor GEHC. GEHC’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; CRL keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
Largest factor move: Momentum -6
New signals
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
GEHC's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CRL and GEHC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GEHC (GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
CRL (Charles River Laboratories International, Inc.): the counter-case, on momentum, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 29.6% against 21.8%.
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
GEHCGEHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CRLCRL on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEHCGEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 points.
Momentum
CRLCRL on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
GEHCGEHC on Risk Resilience, by 9 points.
Analyst upside
GEHCGEHC 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 | CRL | GEHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -11.4% | +21.8% | GEHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +43.8% | +32.1% | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GEHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GEHC | 37 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | GEHCon balance | EPS growth 90% vs 45.9%; TTM ROE -7.7% vs 15.2%; gross margin 32.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin 12.3% vs 12.7% — GEHC takes 2 of 3 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEHC | Value 42 vs 65 |
| Technicals | CRL | Price vs 50-day 7.9% vs -6.4%; vs 200-day 35.2% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | GEHC | Risk Resilience 50 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | GEHC | Target upside -11.4% vs 21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CRL and GEHC 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)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (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)
- 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 GEHC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GEHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GEHC +12
- 37 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- GEHC +11
- 42 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- GEHC +12
- 49 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- GEHC +6
- 50 vs 56
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.
4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (27.75%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.31%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
GEHC 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 up while the AIQ Score moved down 2 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.93%, AIQ -2 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.48%, 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.
- 1CRL closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEHC's edge.
- 2CRL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3GEHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 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
GEHC leads on balance| Metric | CRL | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.8% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 90% | 45.9% |
| Gross margin | 32.2% | 42.9% |
| Operating margin | 12.3% | 12.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -7.7% | 15.2% |
| Debt to equity | 1.07 | 0.92 |
Performance
CRL leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CRL | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -6.4% | -9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4% | -11.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 46.5% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 61.6% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | 36.9% | -21.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 68.5% | -17.8% |
Technicals
CRL has the stronger structure| Metric | CRL | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 33.9 | 16.7 |
| ADX (14) | 35.2 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.9% | -6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 35.2% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 29.6% | 21.8% |
Risk
GEHC is the more resilient| Metric | CRL | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.25 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 1.35 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 2.11 | -0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -33.9% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -27.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 46% | 35.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.1% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CRL or GEHC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GEHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against CRL's 37. The edge comes from value and quality. CRL 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 CRL or GEHC the better buy right now?
GEHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 5 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 GEHC over CRL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEHC leads Value by 23 points; GEHC leads Quality by 22 points; CRL leads Momentum by 13 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CRL or GEHC?
Analyst price targets imply -11.4% upside for CRL and +21.8% for GEHC, so the Street currently favors GEHC. 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, CRL or GEHC?
GEHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 23 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, CRL or GEHC?
CRL 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, CRL or GEHC?
CRL on the Momentum factor, by 13 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, CRL or GEHC?
GEHC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEHC on Risk Resilience, by 9 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 CRL more profitable than GEHC?
GEHC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 32.2% vs 42.9%; operating margin 12.3% vs 12.7%; ttm roe -7.7% vs 15.2%.
Is GEHC's lead over CRL getting stronger or weaker?
GEHC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 12 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the CRL vs GEHC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CRL closes the Value gap — currently 23 points behind, the largest single contributor to GEHC's edge; CRL generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; GEHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 4 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 CRL and GEHC?
CRL: 4 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GEHC: 2 bullish / 4 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 CRL is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GEHC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CRL and GEHC 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.