DHR vs EXAS Stock Comparison
DHR currently leads EXAS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 46. The clearest difference is quality, while EXAS has the stronger risk resilience profile.
What is the main difference between DHR and EXAS?
DHR leads the current stock comparison as Danaher Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Danaher Corporation vs Exact Sciences Corporation
DHR leads
DHR leads by 10 AIQ points, primarily on Quality, and the lead has widened from 7 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support DHR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Danaher Corporation
Exact Sciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DHR over EXAS, 56 versus 46 as of Oct 31, 2026. DHR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality, while EXAS holds the stronger risk resilience profile. DHR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DHR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Danaher Corporation and Exact Sciences Corporation 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 EXAS 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.
- Quality57 vs 44DHR +13
- Risk Resilience59 vs 67EXAS +8
- Value33 vs 37EXAS +4
2 of 6 evidence groups favor DHR. DHR’s edge is concentrated in quality; EXAS 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.
DHR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DHR and EXAS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DHR (Danaher Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality.
EXAS (Exact Sciences Corporation): the counter-case, on risk resilience, value, valuation.
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
DHRDHR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EXASEXAS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
EXASEXAS on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | DHR | EXAS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.5% | +0.1% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | 0% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 1 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
2 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 | 56 vs 46 |
| Fundamentals | DHRon balance | revenue growth 4.6% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 42.3% vs -3.5%; TTM ROE 8.2% vs -8.5%; gross margin 58.6% vs 69.7%; operating margin 20.4% vs -6.2% — DHR takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EXAS | Value 33 vs 37 |
| Technicals | EXAS | Price vs 50-day 6.5% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs 41.3% |
| Risk Resilience | EXAS | Risk Resilience 59 vs 67 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 0.5% vs 0.1% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DHR and EXAS 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 moderate at 10 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 DHR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DHR +10
- 56 vs 46
- 7 sessions ago
- DHR +8
- 54 vs 46
- 30 sessions ago
- DHR +7
- 53 vs 46
- 90 sessions ago
- DHR +9
- 55 vs 46
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Sep 14 when DHR moved ahead of EXAS.
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%)
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 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
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
No active signals
No signal that the other name lacks.
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.
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -2%, 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.
- 1EXAS closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge.
- 2EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3DHR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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
DHR leads on balance| Metric | DHR | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.3% | -3.5% |
| Gross margin | 58.6% | 69.7% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | -6.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.2% | -8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 0.49 | 1.05 |
Performance
EXAS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | DHR | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 1.3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.7% | 1.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.3% | 3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.7% | 100.3% |
| Year to date | 2.2% | 3.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5% | 133.5% |
Technicals
EXAS has the stronger structure| Metric | DHR | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 74.1 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 42.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.5% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | 41.3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.5% | 4.2% |
Risk
EXAS is the more resilient| Metric | DHR | EXAS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | -0.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 3.28 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 14.04 |
| Max drawdown | -33.1% | -5% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | 0% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 44.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -0.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DHR or EXAS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DHR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against EXAS's 46. The edge comes from quality. EXAS 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 EXAS the better buy right now?
DHR 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: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DHR over EXAS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. DHR leads Quality by 13 points; EXAS leads Risk Resilience by 8 points; EXAS leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DHR or EXAS?
Analyst price targets imply +0.5% upside for DHR and +0.1% for EXAS. 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 EXAS?
EXAS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EXAS 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, DHR or EXAS?
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 EXAS?
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 EXAS?
EXAS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EXAS on Risk Resilience, by 8 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 EXAS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 58.6% vs 69.7%; operating margin 20.4% vs -6.2%; ttm roe 8.2% vs -8.5%. DHR leads on two measures and EXAS 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 EXAS getting stronger or weaker?
DHR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 7 to 10 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-07-01 and 2026-10-30. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-14, when DHR moved ahead of EXAS.
What would change the DHR vs EXAS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EXAS closes the Quality gap — currently 13 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge; EXAS generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as Golden Cross Active or MACD Bullish Crossover; DHR's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 5 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 DHR and EXAS?
DHR: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. EXAS: No active signals. 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).
Compare DHR and EXAS 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.