EME vs GTES Stock Comparison
Compare EME and GTES across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between EME and GTES?
EME leads the current stock comparison as EMCOR Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EMCOR Group, Inc. vs Gates Industrial Corporation plc
EME leads
EME leads by 4 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EME, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Gates Industrial Corporation plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EME over GTES, 59 versus 55 as of Sep 11, 2026. EME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while GTES holds the stronger momentum profile. EME also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 4 points. EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
Compare EMCOR Group, Inc. and Gates Industrial Corporation plc 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 EME and GTES 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.
- Quality77 vs 49EME +28
- Momentum30 vs 46GTES +16
- Risk Resilience69 vs 61EME +8
- Value59 vs 66GTES +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EME. EME’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; GTES keeps a meaningful momentum 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 +3
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum -3
New signals
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.58%)
EME's lead widened by 2 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EME and GTES both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EME (EMCOR Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
GTES (Gates Industrial Corporation plc): the counter-case, on momentum, value, fundamentals.
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
EMEEME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
GTESGTES on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
GTESGTES on the peer-relative Value factor, by 7 points.
Momentum
GTESGTES on the Momentum factor, by 16 points.
Lower downside
EMEEME on Risk Resilience, by 8 points.
Analyst upside
EMEEME 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 | EME | GTES | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +33.2% | +20.6% | EME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +28.8% | +19.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | 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 EME. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EME | 59 vs 55 |
| Fundamentals | GTESon balance | revenue growth 11.4% vs 10.6%; EPS growth 30.8% vs 179.2%; TTM ROE 38.4% vs 10.7%; gross margin 19.7% vs 40.5%; operating margin 10.2% vs 14.7% — GTES takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | GTES | Value 59 vs 66 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 0.6% vs -2.6%; vs 200-day -1.7% vs 2.4% |
| Risk Resilience | EME | Risk Resilience 69 vs 61 |
| Analyst expectations | EME | Target upside 33.2% vs 20.6% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EME and GTES 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 4 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 narrowing. (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 EME.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EME +4
- 59 vs 55
- 7 sessions ago
- EME +1
- 53 vs 52
- 30 sessions ago
- EME +14
- 68 vs 54
- 90 sessions ago
- GTES +2
- 54 vs 56
The lead changed hands 8 times in this window, most recently on Jul 29 when EME moved ahead of GTES.
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 / 1 bearish, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.88%)
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.83%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.58%)
EME 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 and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +4.32%, AIQ +1 points).
Price is up while the AIQ Score moved down 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price +1.6%, AIQ -1 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.
- 1GTES closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge.
- 2GTES's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
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
GTES leads on balance| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.4% | 10.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.8% | 179.2% |
| Gross margin | 19.7% | 40.5% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 14.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 38.4% | 10.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.67 |
Performance
GTES leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | 1.9% | 2.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.2% | -7.9% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -3.7% | 1.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 3.9% | 7.4% |
| Year to date | 22.3% | 19.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 20.4% | 0.3% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 39.6 | 47.7 |
| ADX (14) | 21.6 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | 0.6% | -2.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -1.7% | 2.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 36.4% | 31.3% |
Risk
EME is the more resilient| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.91 | 1.63 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.55 | 0.15 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.74 | 0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -28.7% | -25% |
| Current drawdown | -20.7% | -14.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.1% | 40.9% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.9% | -4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EME or GTES?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EME is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 59 against GTES's 55. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. GTES 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 EME or GTES the better buy right now?
EME 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 4 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EME over GTES?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EME leads Quality by 28 points; GTES leads Momentum by 16 points; EME leads Risk Resilience by 8 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EME or GTES?
Analyst price targets imply +33.2% upside for EME and +20.6% for GTES, so the Street currently favors EME. 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, EME or GTES?
GTES is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. GTES 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, EME or GTES?
GTES 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, EME or GTES?
GTES on the Momentum factor, by 16 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, EME or GTES?
EME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EME 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 EME more profitable than GTES?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 19.7% vs 40.5%; operating margin 10.2% vs 14.7%; ttm roe 38.4% vs 10.7%. EME leads on one measure and GTES 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 EME's lead over GTES getting stronger or weaker?
EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 4 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 8 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-29, when EME moved ahead of GTES.
What would change the EME vs GTES verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: GTES closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge; GTES's Bollinger Band Squeeze turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 10 points over 30 sessions, and a further 4-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EME and GTES?
EME: 1 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. GTES: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 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 EME is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On GTES it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EME and GTES 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.