DHR vs EFX Stock Comparison
EFX currently leads DHR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 59 vs 56. The clearest difference is value, while DHR has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between DHR and EFX?
EFX leads the current stock comparison as Equifax Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Danaher Corporation vs Equifax Inc.
EFX leads
EFX leads by 3 AIQ points, primarily on Value, having only recently taken the lead back from DHR.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EFX, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Danaher Corporation
Equifax Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EFX over DHR, 59 versus 56 as of Oct 31, 2026. EFX's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value, while DHR holds the stronger risk resilience profile. EFX also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EFX today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. EFX lead: Reversed — DHR led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EFX now leads by 3.
Compare Danaher Corporation and Equifax Inc. 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 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.
- Value33 vs 54EFX +21
- Risk Resilience59 vs 39DHR +20
- Quality57 vs 54Even
- Momentum80 vs 81Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EFX. EFX’s edge is concentrated in value; DHR keeps a meaningful risk resilience edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-30, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-29.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 5 active signals are unchanged.
EFX's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
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
EFX (Equifax Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value.
DHR (Danaher Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, fundamentals, technicals.
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
EFXEFX on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
DHRDHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EFXEFX on the peer-relative Value factor, by 21 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
DHRDHR on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
EFXEFX 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 | DHR | EFX | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.5% | +7.6% | EFX has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +48.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 17 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.20% | 3.91% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.720 | $1.560 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.280 | $1.890 |
| Years increased | 5 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #60 | #287 |
DHR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.20% a year against EFX's 3.91%. 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EFX. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | Even | 56 vs 59 |
| Fundamentals | DHRon balance | EPS growth 42.3% vs 16.1%; TTM ROE 8.2% vs 16.5%; gross margin 58.6% vs 55.2%; operating margin 20.4% vs 18.8% — DHR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EFX | Value 33 vs 54 |
| Technicals | DHR | Price vs 50-day 6.5% vs 10.7%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs -0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | DHR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 39 |
| Analyst expectations | EFX | Target upside 0.5% vs 7.6% |
✓ 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 3 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has already changed hands inside the comparison window. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EFX.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30EFX lead: Reversed — DHR led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EFX now leads by 3.
- Today
- EFX +3
- 56 vs 59
- 7 sessions ago
- EFX +8
- 54 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- DHR +10
- 53 vs 43
- 90 sessions ago
- EFX +2
- 55 vs 57
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 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.
5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only DHR
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.39%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EFX
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.32%)
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.63%)
- Keltner Channel Breakout — bullish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: RSI Overbought, MACD Bullish Crossover.
EFX 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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +2.9%, 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.
- 1DHR closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to EFX's edge.
- 2DHR's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3EFX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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
DHR leads on balance| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | -0.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.3% | 16.1% |
| Gross margin | 58.6% | 55.2% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | 18.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.2% | 16.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.49 | 1.16 |
Performance
DHR leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 0.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.7% | 23.3% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.3% | -0.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.7% | 2% |
| Year to date | 2.2% | -18.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5% | -24.7% |
Technicals
DHR has the stronger structure| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 75.1 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 34.2 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.5% | 10.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | -0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.5% | 54.2% |
Risk
DHR is the more resilient| Metric | DHR | EFX |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.54 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | -0.48 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | -0.67 |
| Max drawdown | -33.1% | -39.5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | -22.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 41.2% |
| 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, EFX is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 59 against DHR's 56. The edge comes from value. DHR is not without a case — it holds the better risk resilience 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?
EFX carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 3 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EFX over DHR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EFX leads Value by 21 points; DHR leads Risk Resilience by 20 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 +0.5% upside for DHR and +7.6% for EFX, so the Street currently favors EFX. 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, 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 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, DHR or EFX?
DHR 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?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 20 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 58.6% vs 55.2%; operating margin 20.4% vs 18.8%; ttm roe 8.2% vs 16.5%. 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 EFX's lead over DHR getting stronger or weaker?
EFX lead: Reversed — DHR led by 10 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; EFX now leads by 3. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-19, 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: DHR closes the Value gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to EFX's edge; DHR's RSI Overbought resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; EFX's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 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 DHR and EFX?
DHR: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. EFX: 2 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 DHR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, 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.