EL vs GPC Stock Comparison
Compare EL and GPC across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EL and GPC?
GPC leads the current stock comparison as Genuine Parts Company, with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. vs Genuine Parts Company
GPC leads
GPC leads by 9 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GPC, and its current signal state is conflicted.
The Estée Lauder Companies Inc.
Genuine Parts Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GPC over EL, 48 versus 39 as of Sep 11, 2026. GPC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience, while EL holds the stronger quality profile. GPC also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. GPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
Compare The Estée Lauder Companies Inc. and Genuine Parts Company 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 EL and GPC 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.
- Value25 vs 55GPC +30
- Risk Resilience41 vs 57GPC +16
- Quality35 vs 25EL +10
- Momentum59 vs 62Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GPC. GPC’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience; EL keeps a meaningful quality 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 -2
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
GPC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EL and GPC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GPC (Genuine Parts Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
EL (The Estée Lauder Companies Inc.): the counter-case, on quality — but at materially higher volatility, 68.5% against 21.9%.
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
GPCGPC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GPCGPC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GPCGPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GPCGPC on Risk Resilience, by 16 points.
Analyst upside
GPCGPC 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 | EL | GPC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | -2.1% | +9.5% | GPC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +50.5% | +32.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 4 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GPC. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GPC | 39 vs 48 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth -2.5% vs 4.3%; EPS growth -232% vs 20.4%; gross margin 75.5% vs 36.2%; operating margin 5.2% vs 4% |
| Valuation | GPC | Value 25 vs 55 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 8.3% vs 2.6%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs 11.8% |
| Risk Resilience | GPC | Risk Resilience 41 vs 57 |
| Analyst expectations | GPC | Target upside -2.1% vs 9.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EL and GPC and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 9 points.
- 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 GPC.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GPC +9
- 39 vs 48
- 7 sessions ago
- GPC +7
- 44 vs 51
- 30 sessions ago
- GPC +9
- 43 vs 52
- 90 sessions ago
- GPC +17
- 35 vs 52
The lead changed hands 2 times in this window, most recently on May 19 when GPC moved ahead of EL.
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.
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (3.11%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.53%)
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (8.63%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
GPC 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 +0.67%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.36%, 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.
- 1EL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge.
- 2EL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GPC'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
Split| Metric | EL | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -2.5% | 4.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -232% | 20.4% |
| Gross margin | 75.5% | 36.2% |
| Operating margin | 5.2% | 4% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 4.6% | 0.7% |
| Debt to equity | 2.43 | 1.47 |
Performance
GPC leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EL | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.6% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 10% | 0.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13% | 36.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.4% | 20.4% |
| Year to date | -7.9% | 9.1% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 8.6% | -4.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EL | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 50.6 | 52.8 |
| ADX (14) | 31.7 | 20.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 8.3% | 2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | 11.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 68.5% | 21.9% |
Risk
GPC is the more resilient| Metric | EL | GPC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.42 | 0.53 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.34 | -0.06 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.45 | -0.09 |
| Max drawdown | -43.8% | -38% |
| Current drawdown | -19.4% | -10.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 48.7% | 33% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.6% | -2.8% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EL or GPC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GPC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 48 against EL's 39. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. EL 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 EL or GPC the better buy right now?
GPC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GPC over EL?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GPC leads Value by 30 points; GPC leads Risk Resilience by 16 points; EL leads Quality by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EL or GPC?
Analyst price targets imply -2.1% upside for EL and +9.5% for GPC, so the Street currently favors GPC. 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, EL or GPC?
GPC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GPC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 30 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, EL or GPC?
GPC 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, EL or GPC?
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, EL or GPC?
GPC is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GPC on Risk Resilience, by 16 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 EL more profitable than GPC?
EL leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 75.5% vs 36.2%; operating margin 5.2% vs 4%; ttm roe 4.6% vs 0.7%.
Is GPC's lead over EL getting stronger or weaker?
GPC lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 9 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 2 times in that window, most recently on 2026-05-19, when GPC moved ahead of EL.
What would change the EL vs GPC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EL closes the Value gap — currently 30 points behind, the largest single contributor to GPC's edge; EL's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GPC'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 EL and GPC?
EL: 1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GPC: 3 bullish / 1 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 EL is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On GPC it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EL and GPC 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.