DXCM vs GEHC Stock Comparison
Compare DXCM and GEHC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between DXCM and GEHC?
DXCM leads the current stock comparison as DexCom, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
DexCom, Inc. vs GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
DXCM leads
DXCM leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Momentum, and the lead has widened from 0 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors GEHC on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support DXCM, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
DexCom, Inc.
GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors DXCM over GEHC, 54 versus 49 as of Sep 11, 2026. DXCM's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and momentum, while GEHC holds the stronger value profile. DXCM also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors GEHC. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DXCM today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. DXCM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare DexCom, Inc. and GE HealthCare Technologies 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 DXCM and GEHC 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.
- Value28 vs 65GEHC +37
- Quality86 vs 51DXCM +35
- Momentum42 vs 21DXCM +21
- Risk Resilience60 vs 59Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor DXCM. DXCM’s edge is concentrated in quality and momentum; GEHC 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 +1
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1
No new signals fired.
DXCM's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — DXCM and GEHC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
DXCM (DexCom, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and momentum.
GEHC (GE HealthCare Technologies Inc.): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations.
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
DXCMDXCM on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GEHCGEHC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GEHCGEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 points.
Momentum
DXCMDXCM on the Momentum factor, by 21 points.
Lower downside
GEHCGEHC carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
GEHCGEHC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors DXCM, analyst targets favor GEHC. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | DXCM | GEHC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +5.6% | +21.8% | GEHC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +46.8% | +32.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 14 | 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor DXCM. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | DXCM | 54 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | DXCMon balance | revenue growth 9.8% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 25% vs 45.9%; TTM ROE 36.2% vs 15.2%; gross margin 62.5% vs 42.9%; operating margin 22.9% vs 12.7% — DXCM takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GEHC | Value 28 vs 65 |
| Technicals | DXCM | Price vs 50-day 1.1% vs -6.4%; vs 200-day 18.6% vs -11.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 60 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | GEHC | Target upside 5.6% vs 21.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of DXCM and GEHC 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 5 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Only 3 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 DXCM.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10DXCM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- DXCM +5
- 54 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- DXCM +4
- 57 vs 53
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 61 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- DXCM +1
- 57 vs 56
The lead changed hands 5 times in this window, most recently on Aug 27 when DXCM moved ahead of GEHC.
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 (15.24%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.31%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
DXCM 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 down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -1.75%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.48%, 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.
- 1GEHC closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to DXCM's edge.
- 2GEHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3DXCM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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
DXCM leads on balance| Metric | DXCM | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.8% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 25% | 45.9% |
| Gross margin | 62.5% | 42.9% |
| Operating margin | 22.9% | 12.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 36.2% | 15.2% |
| Debt to equity | 0.53 | 0.92 |
Performance
DXCM leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | DXCM | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.8% | -9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -6.9% | -11.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13% | 0.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 27.4% | -11.6% |
| Year to date | 27.3% | -21.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.3% | -17.8% |
Technicals
DXCM has the stronger structure| Metric | DXCM | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 31.5 | 16.7 |
| ADX (14) | 25.7 | 24.6 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.1% | -6.4% |
| Price vs 200-day | 18.6% | -11.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 23.1% | 21.8% |
Risk
Split| Metric | DXCM | GEHC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.66 | 0.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.29 | -0.51 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.4 | -0.72 |
| Max drawdown | -30.1% | -32.5% |
| Current drawdown | -8.5% | -27.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 41.3% | 35.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -3.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, DXCM or GEHC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, DXCM is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 against GEHC's 49. The edge comes from quality and momentum. GEHC 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 DXCM or GEHC the better buy right now?
DXCM carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 5 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor DXCM over GEHC?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GEHC leads Value by 37 points; DXCM leads Quality by 35 points; DXCM leads Momentum by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, DXCM or GEHC?
Analyst price targets imply +5.6% upside for DXCM and +21.8% for GEHC, so the Street currently favors GEHC. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors DXCM. 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, DXCM or GEHC?
GEHC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GEHC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 37 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, DXCM or GEHC?
GEHC 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, DXCM or GEHC?
DXCM 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, DXCM or GEHC?
GEHC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GEHC 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 DXCM more profitable than GEHC?
DXCM leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 62.5% vs 42.9%; operating margin 22.9% vs 12.7%; ttm roe 36.2% vs 15.2%.
Is DXCM's lead over GEHC getting stronger or weaker?
DXCM lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 0 to 5 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 2026-08-27, when DXCM moved ahead of GEHC.
What would change the DXCM vs GEHC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GEHC closes the Quality gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to DXCM's edge; GEHC's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; DXCM's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 3 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 DXCM and GEHC?
DXCM: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GEHC: 2 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 DXCM is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GEHC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare DXCM and GEHC 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.