DHR vs EFX Stock Comparison
Compare DHR and EFX across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DHR and EFX?
DHR leads the current stock comparison as Danaher Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Danaher Corporation vs Equifax Inc.
DHR leads
DHR leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors EFX on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support DHR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Danaher Corporation
Equifax Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DHR over EFX, 42 versus 38 as of Sep 11, 2026. DHR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while EFX holds the stronger value profile. DHR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EFX. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DHR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Danaher Corporation and Equifax 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 DHR and EFX 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 Resilience59 vs 35DHR +24
- Value37 vs 53EFX +16
- Quality56 vs 46DHR +10
- Momentum19 vs 14DHR +5
4 of 6 evidence groups favor DHR. DHR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; EFX keeps a meaningful value 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 -29
New signals
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Largest factor move: Momentum -1
No new signals fired.
DHR's lead narrowed by 6 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DHR and EFX both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DHR (Danaher Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
EFX (Equifax Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42% against 30.5%.
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
DHRDHR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EFXEFX on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EFXEFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 points.
Momentum
DHRDHR on the Momentum factor, by 5 points.
Lower downside
DHRDHR on Risk Resilience, by 24 points.
Analyst upside
EFXEFX on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DHR, analyst targets favor EFX. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DHR | EFX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +9.9% | +26% | EFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +24.6% | +33.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 12 | 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 DHR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DHR | 42 vs 38 |
| Fundamentals | DHRon balance | revenue growth 5.3% vs 3.1%; EPS growth -15.2% vs 8.4%; TTM ROE 7.7% vs 15%; gross margin 58.5% vs 44.4%; operating margin 20.4% vs 17.9% — DHR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EFX | Value 37 vs 53 |
| Technicals | DHR | Price vs 50-day -1% vs -5.5%; vs 200-day -1% vs -10.3% |
| Risk Resilience | DHR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | EFX | Target upside 9.9% vs 26% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DHR and EFX 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 narrow at 4 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DHR.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DHR +4
- 42 vs 38
- 7 sessions ago
- DHR +9
- 53 vs 44
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 55 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- DHR +1
- 54 vs 53
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 28 when EFX moved ahead of DHR.
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 / 3 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.14%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.71%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
DHR 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 and the AIQ Score both moved down over the latest session (price -0.19%, AIQ -7 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +0.57%, 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.
- 1EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge.
- 2EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DHR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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
DHR leads on balance| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 5.3% | 3.1% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -15.2% | 8.4% |
| Gross margin | 58.5% | 44.4% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | 17.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 7.7% | 15% |
| Debt to equity | 0.51 | 1.25 |
Performance
DHR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -9.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -2.6% | -6.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 9.2% | 1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 2.8% | -12.3% |
| Year to date | -12.4% | -22.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 1% | -33.6% |
Technicals
DHR has the stronger structure| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 26.4 | 22.3 |
| ADX (14) | 17 | 19.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1% | -5.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1% | -10.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 30.5% | 42% |
Risk
DHR is the more resilient| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.43 | 0.55 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.13 | -0.94 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.2 | -1.19 |
| Max drawdown | -33.1% | -42.1% |
| Current drawdown | -17.1% | -35.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.5% | 39.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DHR or EFX?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DHR is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 42 against EFX's 38. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. EFX 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 DHR or EFX the better buy right now?
DHR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DHR over EFX?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DHR leads Risk Resilience by 24 points; EFX leads Value by 16 points; DHR leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DHR or EFX?
Analyst price targets imply +9.9% upside for DHR and +26% for EFX, so the Street currently favors EFX. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DHR. 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, DHR or EFX?
EFX is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 16 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, DHR or EFX?
EFX 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, DHR or EFX?
DHR on the Momentum factor, by 5 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, DHR or EFX?
DHR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DHR on Risk Resilience, by 24 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 DHR more profitable than EFX?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.5% vs 44.4%; operating margin 20.4% vs 17.9%; ttm roe 7.7% vs 15%. DHR leads on two measures and EFX 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 DHR's lead over EFX getting stronger or weaker?
DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 4 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 2026-08-28, when EFX moved ahead of DHR.
What would change the DHR vs EFX verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EFX closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 24 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge; EFX's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DHR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 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 DHR and EFX?
DHR: 2 bullish / 3 bearish, conflicted. EFX: 1 bullish / 4 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 DHR is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On EFX it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DHR and EFX 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.