ELV vs UNH Stock Comparison
ELV currently leads UNH in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 68 vs 63. The clearest difference is risk resilience, while UNH has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between ELV and UNH?
ELV leads the current stock comparison as Elevance Health Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Elevance Health Inc. vs UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
ELV leads
ELV leads by 5 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Value. Wall Street currently favors UNH on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support ELV, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Elevance Health Inc.
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors ELV over UNH, 68 versus 63 as of Oct 21, 2026. ELV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and value, while UNH holds the stronger momentum profile. ELV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors UNH. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELV today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 5 points. ELV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Elevance Health Inc. and UnitedHealth Group Incorporated 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 ELV and UNH 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.
- Risk Resilience68 vs 51ELV +17
- Value68 vs 59ELV +9
- Momentum91 vs 95UNH +4
- Quality48 vs 46Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor ELV. ELV’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and value; UNH keeps a meaningful momentum edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-20, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-19.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 7 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
New signals
- RSI Overbought — bearish, momentum, short horizon
ELV's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ELV and UNH both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
ELV (Elevance Health Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and value.
UNH (UnitedHealth Group Incorporated): the counter-case, on momentum, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 27.3% against 20.6%.
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
ELVELV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ELVELV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ELVELV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 points.
Momentum
UNHUNH on the Momentum factor, by 4 points.
Lower downside
ELVELV on Risk Resilience, by 17 points.
Analyst upside
UNHUNH on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors ELV, analyst targets favor UNH. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ELV | UNH | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +3.5% | +12.9% | UNH has more room |
| Target dispersion | +23.4% | +31.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 15 | 20 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | ELV | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 12.47% | 12.57% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $3.800 | $4.830 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $6.840 | $8.730 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #59 | #58 |
UNH grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 12.57% a year against ELV's 12.47%. 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
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor ELV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | ELV | 68 vs 63 |
| Fundamentals | Even | revenue growth 0.6% vs 0.6%; EPS growth -16.1% vs -24.6%; TTM ROE 11.2% vs 16.1%; gross margin 39% vs 22.8%; operating margin 3.5% vs 5.3% |
| Valuation | ELV | Value 68 vs 59 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 7.1% vs 7.6%; vs 200-day 19% vs 16.5% |
| Risk Resilience | ELV | Risk Resilience 68 vs 51 |
| Analyst expectations | UNH | Target upside 3.5% vs 12.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ELV and UNH 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 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 ELV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20ELV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- ELV +5
- 68 vs 63
- 7 sessions ago
- ELV +6
- 68 vs 62
- 30 sessions ago
- ELV +6
- 54 vs 48
- 90 sessions ago
- ELV +14
- 58 vs 44
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 6 when ELV moved ahead of UNH.
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.
6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only ELV
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (0.0%)
5 bullish / 2 bearish, conflicted
Only UNH
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
Both carry 6 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, Keltner Channel Breakout, RSI Overbought, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active, MACD Bullish Crossover.
ELV 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 -1.37%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.54%, 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.
- 1UNH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELV's edge.
- 2UNH's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3ELV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 | ELV | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 0.6% | 0.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -16.1% | -24.6% |
| Gross margin | 39% | 22.8% |
| Operating margin | 3.5% | 5.3% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 11.2% | 16.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.69 | 0.71 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ELV | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 3.5% | 11% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 9.4% | 12.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 13.1% | -2.8% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 34.2% | 21.2% |
| Year to date | 25.6% | 27% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 26.4% | 17.5% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ELV | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 85.3 | 80.8 |
| ADX (14) | 22.4 | 31.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 7.1% | 7.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | 19% | 16.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 20.6% | 27.3% |
Risk
ELV is the more resilient| Metric | ELV | UNH |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 0.33 | 0.37 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.73 | 0.53 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.9 | 0.65 |
| Max drawdown | -26.5% | -29.6% |
| Current drawdown | 0% | -3.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 35% | 34.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -2.6% | -2.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ELV or UNH?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, ELV is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 68 against UNH's 63. The edge comes from risk resilience and value. UNH is not without a case — it holds the better momentum 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 ELV or UNH the better buy right now?
ELV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 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 ELV over UNH?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ELV leads Risk Resilience by 17 points; ELV leads Value by 9 points; UNH leads Momentum by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ELV or UNH?
Analyst price targets imply +3.5% upside for ELV and +12.9% for UNH, so the Street currently favors UNH. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors ELV. 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, ELV or UNH?
ELV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ELV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 9 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, ELV or UNH?
ELV 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, ELV or UNH?
UNH on the Momentum factor, by 4 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, ELV or UNH?
ELV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. ELV on Risk Resilience, by 17 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 ELV more profitable than UNH?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 39% vs 22.8%; operating margin 3.5% vs 5.3%; ttm roe 11.2% vs 16.1%. ELV leads on one measure and UNH on two measures, 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 ELV's lead over UNH getting stronger or weaker?
ELV lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 5 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-21 and 2026-10-20. The lead has changed hands 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-06, when ELV moved ahead of UNH.
What would change the ELV vs UNH verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: UNH closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 17 points behind, the largest single contributor to ELV's edge; UNH's BB Upper Band Breach resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; ELV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 6 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 ELV and UNH?
ELV: 6 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. UNH: 5 bullish / 2 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 ELV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On UNH it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ELV and UNH 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.