DGX vs EHC Stock Comparison
Compare DGX and EHC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DGX and EHC?
EHC leads the current stock comparison as Encompass Health Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated vs Encompass Health Corporation
EHC leads
EHC leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support EHC, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Quest Diagnostics Incorporated
Encompass Health Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EHC over DGX, 62 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. EHC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum. EHC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EHC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Quest Diagnostics Incorporated and Encompass Health Corporation 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 DGX and EHC 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.
- Quality47 vs 69EHC +22
- Momentum40 vs 61EHC +21
- Value53 vs 57EHC +4
- Risk Resilience60 vs 60Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor EHC. EHC’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum.
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 -5
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
New signals
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.9%)
EHC's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DGX and EHC both carry a full feed there.
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
EHCEHC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DGXDGX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EHCEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EHCEHC on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
EHCEHC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
EHCEHC 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 | DGX | EHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +1.1% | +21.8% | EHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21% | +10.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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 EHC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EHC | 49 vs 62 |
| Fundamentals | EHCon balance | EPS growth 26.9% vs -20.9%; TTM ROE 14.5% vs 25%; gross margin 33.1% vs 73.1%; operating margin 14.1% vs 18% — EHC takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EHC | Value 53 vs 57 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 2.7% vs 4.5%; vs 200-day 14.5% vs 12.7% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | EHC | Target upside 1.1% vs 21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DGX and EHC 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 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 EHC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EHC +13
- 49 vs 62
- 7 sessions ago
- EHC +8
- 54 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- EHC +7
- 56 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- EHC +7
- 58 vs 65
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 26 when DGX moved ahead of EHC.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (13.42%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
4 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.47%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
EHC 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 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.68%, AIQ -1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.55%, 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.
- 1DGX closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EHC's edge.
- 2DGX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3EHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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
EHC leads on balance| Metric | DGX | EHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.1% | 0.7% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 26.9% | -20.9% |
| Gross margin | 33.1% | 73.1% |
| Operating margin | 14.1% | 18% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 14.5% | 25% |
| Debt to equity | 0.85 | 1.09 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | DGX | EHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4% | -0.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.8% | -3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.4% | 17.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 15.2% | 20.3% |
| Year to date | 33.2% | 14% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.6% | -3.9% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | DGX | EHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.7 | 50.5 |
| ADX (14) | 28 | 24.4 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.7% | 4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 14.5% | 12.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 16.9% | 13.2% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DGX | EHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | -0.13 | 0.08 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.94 | -0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.81 | -0.21 |
| Max drawdown | -11.9% | -26.1% |
| Current drawdown | -5.7% | -4.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 23.8% | 28.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DGX or EHC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EHC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 62 against DGX's 49. The edge comes from quality and momentum. 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 DGX or EHC the better buy right now?
EHC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 EHC over DGX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EHC leads Quality by 22 points; EHC leads Momentum by 21 points; EHC leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DGX or EHC?
Analyst price targets imply +1.1% upside for DGX and +21.8% for EHC, so the Street currently favors EHC. 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, DGX or EHC?
EHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, DGX or EHC?
DGX 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, DGX or EHC?
EHC on the Momentum factor, by 21 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, DGX or EHC?
EHC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EHC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. Risk Resilience is a weighted factor in the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is DGX more profitable than EHC?
EHC leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 33.1% vs 73.1%; operating margin 14.1% vs 18%; ttm roe 14.5% vs 25%.
Is EHC's lead over DGX getting stronger or weaker?
EHC lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 5 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-26, when DGX moved ahead of EHC.
What would change the DGX vs EHC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: DGX closes the Quality gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EHC's edge; DGX generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; EHC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 4 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 DGX and EHC?
DGX: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. EHC: 4 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 DGX is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EHC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DGX and EHC 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.