CTVA vs EMN Stock Comparison
EMN currently leads CTVA in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 49 vs 42. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while CTVA has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between CTVA and EMN?
EMN leads the current stock comparison as Eastman Chemical Company, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Corteva, Inc. vs Eastman Chemical Company
EMN leads
EMN leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value, and the lead has widened from 4 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors CTVA on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EMN, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Corteva, Inc.
Eastman Chemical Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMN over CTVA, 49 versus 42 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMN's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while CTVA holds the stronger quality profile. EMN also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors CTVA. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMN today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Corteva, Inc. and Eastman Chemical Company 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 CTVA and EMN 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.
- Risk Resilience41 vs 66EMN +25
- Value46 vs 67EMN +21
- Quality53 vs 34CTVA +19
- Momentum24 vs 37EMN +13
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EMN. EMN’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; CTVA keeps a meaningful quality 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +9
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
EMN's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — CTVA and EMN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMN (Eastman Chemical Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
CTVA (Corteva, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, analyst expectations.
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
EMNEMN on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
CTVACTVA on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EMNEMN on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
EMNEMN on the Momentum factor, by 13 points.
Lower downside
EMNEMN on Risk Resilience, by 25 points.
Analyst upside
CTVACTVA on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EMN, analyst targets favor CTVA. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | CTVA | EMN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +414.8% | +25.3% | CTVA has more room |
| Target dispersion | +134.4% | +30.2% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 9 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | CTVA | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 6.13% | 4.52% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.520 | $2.670 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $0.700 | $3.330 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #208 | #267 |
CTVA grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 6.13% a year against EMN's 4.52%. 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 EMN. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EMN | 42 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | CTVAon balance | revenue growth 30.1% vs 15.4%; EPS growth 61.7% vs 70.2%; TTM ROE 4.1% vs 7.4%; gross margin 48.5% vs 19.9%; operating margin 17.1% vs 9.4% — CTVA takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EMN | Value 46 vs 67 |
| Technicals | EMN | Price vs 50-day -79.6% vs -6.8%; vs 200-day -82.8% vs -10.7% |
| Risk Resilience | EMN | Risk Resilience 41 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | CTVA | Target upside 414.8% vs 25.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of CTVA and EMN 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 moderate at 7 points.
- 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 EMN.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMN +7
- 42 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- EMN +9
- 38 vs 47
- 30 sessions ago
- EMN +4
- 44 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- EMN +13
- 46 vs 59
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 22 when EMN moved ahead of CTVA.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only CTVA
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (23.46%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EMN
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Death Cross Active, Downtrend Structure Active.
EMN 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.4%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price 0%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1CTVA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMN's edge.
- 2CTVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3EMN'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
CTVA leads on balance| Metric | CTVA | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 30.1% | 15.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 61.7% | 70.2% |
| Gross margin | 48.5% | 19.9% |
| Operating margin | 17.1% | 9.4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.1% | 7.4% |
| Debt to equity | 0.19 | 0.86 |
Performance
EMN leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | CTVA | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -3.4% | 0.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -83.9% | -5.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -85.4% | -8.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -83.9% | -12.4% |
| Year to date | -80.8% | -0.5% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -78.9% | 5.6% |
Technicals
EMN has the stronger structure| Metric | CTVA | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 4.2 | 43.5 |
| ADX (14) | 55.1 | 33.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | -79.6% | -6.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -82.8% | -10.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | — | 20.5% |
Risk
EMN is the more resilient| Metric | CTVA | EMN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.05 | 0.84 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.65 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.46 | 0.27 |
| Max drawdown | -86.8% | -23.7% |
| Current drawdown | -85.8% | -21.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 89.1% | 32.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, CTVA or EMN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMN is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 49 against CTVA's 42. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. CTVA is not without a case — it holds the better quality 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 CTVA or EMN the better buy right now?
EMN carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 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 EMN over CTVA?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EMN leads Risk Resilience by 25 points; EMN leads Value by 21 points; CTVA leads Quality by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, CTVA or EMN?
Analyst price targets imply +414.8% upside for CTVA and +25.3% for EMN, so the Street currently favors CTVA. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EMN. 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, CTVA or EMN?
EMN is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EMN 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, CTVA or EMN?
CTVA 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, CTVA or EMN?
EMN 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, CTVA or EMN?
EMN is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMN on Risk Resilience, by 25 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 CTVA more profitable than EMN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 48.5% vs 19.9%; operating margin 17.1% vs 9.4%; ttm roe 4.1% vs 7.4%. CTVA leads on two measures and EMN on one measure, 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 EMN's lead over CTVA getting stronger or weaker?
EMN lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 4 to 7 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 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-22, when EMN moved ahead of CTVA.
What would change the CTVA vs EMN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: CTVA closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMN's edge; CTVA's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; EMN'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 CTVA and EMN?
CTVA: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EMN: 1 bullish / 2 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 CTVA is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EMN it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare CTVA and EMN 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.