EME vs NVT Stock Comparison
EME currently leads NVT in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 52 vs 39. The clearest difference is value, while NVT has the stronger momentum profile.
What is the main difference between EME and NVT?
EME leads the current stock comparison as EMCOR Group, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from value and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
EMCOR Group, Inc. vs nVent Electric plc
EME leads
EME leads by 13 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 19 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors NVT on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EME, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
EMCOR Group, Inc.
nVent Electric plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EME over NVT, 52 versus 39 as of Oct 31, 2026. EME's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and quality, while NVT holds the stronger momentum profile. EME also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors NVT. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EME today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
Compare EMCOR Group, Inc. and nVent Electric 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 NVT 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.
- Value59 vs 37EME +22
- Quality77 vs 56EME +21
- Risk Resilience64 vs 43EME +21
- Momentum8 vs 17NVT +9
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EME. EME’s edge is concentrated in value and quality; NVT keeps a meaningful momentum 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 -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
EME's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EME and NVT both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EME (EMCOR Group, Inc.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and quality.
NVT (nVent Electric plc): the counter-case, on momentum, fundamentals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 64.1% against 42.8%.
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
EMEEME on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
NVTNVT on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EMEEME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 points.
Momentum
NVTNVT on the Momentum factor, by 9 points.
Lower downside
EMEEME on Risk Resilience, by 21 points.
Analyst upside
NVTNVT on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EME, analyst targets favor NVT. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EME | NVT | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +53.4% | +59.8% | NVT has more room |
| Target dispersion | +38.9% | +22.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 14 | 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 | EME | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 25.59% | 2.71% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $0.320 | $0.700 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $1.000 | $0.800 |
| Years increased | 5 | 2 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #2 | #310 |
EME grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 25.59% a year against NVT's 2.71%. 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 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 | 52 vs 39 |
| Fundamentals | NVTon balance | revenue growth 11.4% vs 18.5%; EPS growth 30.8% vs 51.1%; TTM ROE 38.4% vs 15.8%; gross margin 19.7% vs 37%; operating margin 10.2% vs 17.2% — NVT takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EME | Value 59 vs 37 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -9.1% vs -18.1%; vs 200-day -13.2% vs -3.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EME | Risk Resilience 64 vs 43 |
| Analyst expectations | NVT | Target upside 53.4% vs 59.8% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EME and NVT 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 wide at 13 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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 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 EME.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 29 – Oct 28EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EME +13
- 52 vs 39
- 7 sessions ago
- EME +13
- 52 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- EME +19
- 74 vs 55
- 90 sessions ago
- EME +13
- 55 vs 42
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only NVT
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (6.35%)
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode, MACD Bearish Crossover.
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.
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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -8.81%, 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.
- 1NVT closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge.
- 2NVT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 3EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-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
NVT leads on balance| Metric | EME | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 11.4% | 18.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 30.8% | 51.1% |
| Gross margin | 19.7% | 37% |
| Operating margin | 10.2% | 17.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 38.4% | 15.8% |
| Debt to equity | 0 | 0.41 |
Performance
NVT leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | EME | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -2.9% | -4.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -10.1% | -12.6% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -15.1% | -3.2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -18.6% | 2% |
| Year to date | 10.9% | 37.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -7.5% | 37.1% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EME | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 22.9 | 33.4 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 25.9 |
| Price vs 50-day | -9.1% | -18.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | -13.2% | -3.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 42.8% | 64.1% |
Risk
EME is the more resilient| Metric | EME | NVT |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.92 | 2.23 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.09 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.12 | 1.06 |
| Max drawdown | -31.4% | -32% |
| Current drawdown | -28.1% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 45.2% | 49.7% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.4% | -5.2% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EME or NVT?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EME is the stronger of the two as of Oct 31, 2026, scoring 52 against NVT's 39. The edge comes from value and quality. NVT 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 NVT the better buy right now?
EME 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EME over NVT?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EME leads Value by 22 points; EME leads Quality by 21 points; EME leads Risk Resilience by 21 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EME or NVT?
Analyst price targets imply +53.4% upside for EME and +59.8% for NVT, so the Street currently favors NVT. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EME. 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 NVT?
EME is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EME on the peer-relative Value factor, by 22 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 NVT?
NVT 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 NVT?
NVT on the Momentum factor, by 9 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 NVT?
EME is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EME on Risk Resilience, by 21 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 NVT?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 19.7% vs 37%; operating margin 10.2% vs 17.2%; ttm roe 38.4% vs 15.8%. EME leads on one measure and NVT 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 NVT getting stronger or weaker?
EME lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 19 to 13 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-06-29 and 2026-10-28. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the EME vs NVT verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: NVT closes the Value gap — currently 22 points behind, the largest single contributor to EME's edge; NVT's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; EME's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 6 points over 30 sessions, and a further 13-point move would eliminate EME's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about EME and NVT?
EME: 1 bullish / 4 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. NVT: 1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 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 NVT it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EME and NVT 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.