EME vs GTES Stock Comparison
GTES currently leads EME in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 54 vs 52. The clearest difference is momentum, while EME has the stronger quality profile.
What is the main difference between EME and GTES?
GTES leads the current stock comparison as Gates Industrial Corporation plc, with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EMCOR Group, Inc. vs Gates Industrial Corporation plc
GTES leads
GTES leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from EME. Wall Street currently favors EME on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support GTES, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EMCOR Group, Inc.
Gates Industrial Corporation plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GTES over EME, 54 versus 52 as of Oct 31, 2026. GTES's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while EME holds the stronger quality profile. GTES also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EME. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GTES today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. GTES lead: Reversed — EME led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTES now leads by 2.
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
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 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.
- Momentum8 vs 42GTES +34
- Quality77 vs 49EME +28
- Value59 vs 66GTES +7
- Risk Resilience64 vs 59EME +5
3 of 6 evidence groups favor GTES. GTES’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; EME keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-10-28, compared against the prior scored session 2026-10-27.
No factor moved materially.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +5
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
GTES's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
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
GTES (Gates Industrial Corporation plc): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
EME (EMCOR Group, Inc.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 42.8% against 35.7%.
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
GTESGTES 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 34 points.
Lower downside
EMEEME on Risk Resilience, by 5 points.
Analyst upside
EMEEME on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors GTES, analyst targets favor EME. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EME | GTES | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +53.4% | +31.8% | EME has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.9% | +19.1% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 5 | 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 GTES. 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 | 52 vs 54 |
| 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 | GTES | Price vs 50-day -9.1% vs -8.7%; vs 200-day -13.2% vs 0.7% |
| Risk Resilience | EME | Risk Resilience 64 vs 59 |
| Analyst expectations | EME | Target upside 53.4% vs 31.8% |
✓ 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 2 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 GTES.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28GTES lead: Reversed — EME led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTES now leads by 2.
- Today
- GTES +2
- 52 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- EME +3
- 52 vs 49
- 30 sessions ago
- EME +11
- 74 vs 63
- 90 sessions ago
- EME +5
- 55 vs 50
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Oct 27 when GTES moved ahead of EME.
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 / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only EME
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (4.57%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
Only GTES
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (1.37%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
GTES 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 -1.42%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -9.22%, 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.
- 1EME closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTES's edge.
- 2EME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it.
- 3GTES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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
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 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -3% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -1.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.1% | 0.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.6% | 4.3% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | 20.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.5% | -0.8% |
Technicals
GTES has the stronger structure| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.9 | 42.2 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 14.7 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.1% | -8.7% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13.2% | 0.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 35.7% |
Risk
EME is the more resilient| Metric | EME | GTES |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.92 | 1.7 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.12 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 0.18 |
| Max drawdown | -31.4% | -25% |
| Current drawdown | -28.1% | -13.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.2% | 41.2% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -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, GTES is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 54 against EME's 52. The edge comes from momentum and value. EME 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 EME or GTES the better buy right now?
GTES 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GTES over EME?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GTES leads Momentum by 34 points; EME leads Quality by 28 points; GTES leads Value by 7 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 +53.4% upside for EME and +31.8% for GTES, so the Street currently favors EME. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GTES. 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, 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 34 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 5 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 GTES's lead over EME getting stronger or weaker?
GTES lead: Reversed — EME led by 11 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; GTES now leads by 2. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has changed hands 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-10-27, when GTES moved ahead of EME.
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: EME closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to GTES's edge; EME's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend rule currently active against it; GTES's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 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 EME and GTES?
EME: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, 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 Death Cross Active (bearish, 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.