DHR vs ILMN Stock Comparison
DHR currently leads ILMN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 56 vs 55. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while ILMN has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between DHR and ILMN?
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 Illumina, Inc.
DHR leads
DHR leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Momentum, having only recently taken the lead back from ILMN.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DHR, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Danaher Corporation
Illumina, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DHR over ILMN, 56 versus 55 as of Oct 31, 2026. DHR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and momentum, while ILMN holds the stronger quality profile. DHR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DHR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. DHR lead: Reversed — ILMN led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DHR now leads by 1.
Compare Danaher Corporation and Illumina, 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 ILMN 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 78ILMN +21
- Risk Resilience59 vs 38DHR +21
- Momentum80 vs 72DHR +8
- Value33 vs 26DHR +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DHR. DHR’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and momentum; ILMN keeps a meaningful quality 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.
DHR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DHR and ILMN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DHR (Danaher Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and momentum.
ILMN (Illumina, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, fundamentals, technicals — but at materially higher volatility, 56.4% against 32.5%.
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
ILMNILMN on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
DHRDHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
DHRDHR on the Momentum factor, by 8 points.
Lower downside
DHRDHR on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
DHRDHR 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 | ILMN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +0.5% | -4.5% | DHR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +34.3% | +66.6% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 13 | 11 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 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 | Even | 56 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | ILMN | revenue growth 4.6% vs 6.2%; EPS growth 42.3% vs 55.7%; TTM ROE 8.2% vs 31.1%; gross margin 58.6% vs 66.8%; operating margin 20.4% vs 21% |
| Valuation | DHR | Value 33 vs 26 |
| Technicals | ILMN | Price vs 50-day 6.5% vs -4.5%; vs 200-day 16.2% vs 65.1% |
| Risk Resilience | DHR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 38 |
| Analyst expectations | DHR | Target upside 0.5% vs -4.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DHR and ILMN 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 1 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 DHR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jul 1 – Oct 30DHR lead: Reversed — ILMN led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DHR now leads by 1.
- Today
- DHR +1
- 56 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- DHR +6
- 54 vs 48
- 30 sessions ago
- ILMN +2
- 53 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- ILMN +3
- 55 vs 58
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Sep 24 when DHR moved ahead of ILMN.
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
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (2.0%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
3 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ILMN
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (4.87%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -18.64%, 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.
- 1ILMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge.
- 2ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as 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
ILMN leads on balance| Metric | DHR | ILMN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 4.6% | 6.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 42.3% | 55.7% |
| Gross margin | 58.6% | 66.8% |
| Operating margin | 20.4% | 21% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 8.2% | 31.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.49 | 0.89 |
Performance
ILMN leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | DHR | ILMN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 0.1% | 2.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 5.7% | 5.5% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 19.3% | 40.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 29.7% | 130.2% |
| Year to date | 2.2% | 113% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 5% | 188.5% |
Technicals
ILMN has the stronger structure| Metric | DHR | ILMN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 70.1 | 64.5 |
| ADX (14) | 32.8 | 37.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 6.5% | -4.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 16.2% | 65.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32.5% | 56.4% |
Risk
DHR is the more resilient| Metric | DHR | ILMN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.45 | 0.83 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.27 | 2.35 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.38 | 4.82 |
| Max drawdown | -33.1% | -25.7% |
| Current drawdown | -3.3% | -1.7% |
| Annualized volatility | 30.1% | 49.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DHR or ILMN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DHR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 56 against ILMN's 55. The edge comes from risk resilience and momentum. ILMN 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 DHR or ILMN the better buy right now?
DHR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 31, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DHR over ILMN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ILMN leads Quality by 21 points; DHR leads Risk Resilience by 21 points; DHR leads Momentum by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DHR or ILMN?
Analyst price targets imply +0.5% upside for DHR and -4.5% for ILMN, so the Street currently favors DHR. 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 ILMN?
DHR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. DHR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 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 ILMN?
ILMN 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 ILMN?
DHR on the Momentum factor, by 8 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 ILMN?
DHR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. DHR on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 ILMN?
ILMN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 58.6% vs 66.8%; operating margin 20.4% vs 21%; ttm roe 8.2% vs 31.1%.
Is DHR's lead over ILMN getting stronger or weaker?
DHR lead: Reversed — ILMN led by 2 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; DHR now leads by 1. 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 2026-09-24, when DHR moved ahead of ILMN.
What would change the DHR vs ILMN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ILMN closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 21 points behind, the largest single contributor to DHR's edge; ILMN generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as 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 ILMN?
DHR: 5 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ILMN: 3 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 DHR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ILMN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare DHR and ILMN 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.