EMR vs ETN Stock Comparison
EMR currently leads ETN in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 36. The clearest difference is momentum.
What is the main difference between EMR and ETN?
EMR leads the current stock comparison as Emerson Electric Co., with the clearest separation coming from momentum and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Emerson Electric Co. vs Eaton Corporation plc
EMR leads
EMR leads by 22 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ETN on target upside.
Stable: 5 of 6 evidence groups support EMR, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Emerson Electric Co.
Eaton Corporation plc
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMR over ETN, 58 versus 36 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. EMR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ETN. 5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMR today, and the comparison is rated Stable on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 22 points over 30 sessions. EMR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Emerson Electric Co. and Eaton 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 EMR and ETN 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.
- Momentum72 vs 8EMR +64
- Value49 vs 38EMR +11
- Risk Resilience59 vs 52EMR +7
- Quality56 vs 50EMR +6
5 of 6 evidence groups favor EMR. EMR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Risk Resilience -1, not enough on its own to move the overall score.
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
EMR's lead widened by 1 AIQ point in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMR and ETN both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ETN (Eaton Corporation plc): the counter-case, on analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 27.8% against 18.5%.
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
EMREMR on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
EMREMR on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
EMREMR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 points.
Momentum
EMREMR on the Momentum factor, by 64 points.
Lower downside
EMREMR on Risk Resilience, by 7 points.
Analyst upside
ETNETN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EMR, analyst targets favor ETN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EMR | ETN | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.1% | +25.9% | ETN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +13.5% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 8 | 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 | EMR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.29% | 7.34% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.005 | $2.920 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.138 | $4.160 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #341 | #172 |
ETN grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 7.34% a year against EMR's 1.29%. 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
5 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMR. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | EMR | 58 vs 36 |
| Fundamentals | EMRon balance | revenue growth 6.8% vs 14.5%; EPS growth 16.4% vs -5.4%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 19.6%; gross margin 53.2% vs 35.9%; operating margin 20.1% vs 17.7% — EMR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EMR | Value 49 vs 38 |
| Technicals | EMR | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -6.5%; vs 200-day 9.7% vs -3% |
| Risk Resilience | EMR | Risk Resilience 59 vs 52 |
| Analyst expectations | ETN | Target upside 2.1% vs 25.9% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMR and ETN and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The conclusion rests on a wide gap and broad agreement. It is unlikely to turn on a single session.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 22 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 5 of 6 covered evidence groups point the same way. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 EMR.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 22 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMR +22
- 58 vs 36
- 7 sessions ago
- EMR +19
- 58 vs 39
- 30 sessions ago
- EMR +6
- 59 vs 53
- 90 sessions ago
- EMR +3
- 57 vs 54
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Sep 21 when EMR moved ahead of ETN.
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.
3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted
Only EMR
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
3 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
Only ETN
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.91%)
- BB Lower Band Breach — bullish, volatility, short horizon
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 2 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, MACD Bearish Crossover.
EMR 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 +1.65%, AIQ +1 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +3.13%, 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.
- 1ETN closes the Momentum gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge.
- 2ETN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EMR'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
EMR leads on balance| Metric | EMR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 14.5% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.4% | -5.4% |
| Gross margin | 53.2% | 35.9% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | 17.7% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 19.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 1.05 |
Performance
EMR leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | EMR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -10.6% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | -13.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.9% | -6.1% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | -6.8% |
| Year to date | 20.9% | 19.9% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.5% | 1.7% |
Technicals
EMR has the stronger structure| Metric | EMR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 26.6 |
| ADX (14) | 11.6 | 16.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -6.5% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.7% | -3% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 27.8% |
Risk
EMR is the more resilient| Metric | EMR | ETN |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 1.8 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | 0.16 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 0.23 |
| Max drawdown | -23.7% | -18.6% |
| Current drawdown | -2.4% | -16.9% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.7% | 39.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -4.3% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMR or ETN?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against ETN's 36. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 EMR or ETN the better buy right now?
EMR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Stable — 5 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Stable rating means the gap is wide and the evidence is broad, so the conclusion is unlikely to turn on a single session.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMR over ETN?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EMR leads Momentum by 64 points; EMR leads Value by 11 points; EMR leads Risk Resilience by 7 points. EMR leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ETN simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, EMR or ETN?
Analyst price targets imply +2.1% upside for EMR and +25.9% for ETN, so the Street currently favors ETN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EMR. 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, EMR or ETN?
EMR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EMR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 11 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, EMR or ETN?
EMR 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, EMR or ETN?
EMR on the Momentum factor, by 64 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, EMR or ETN?
EMR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMR on Risk Resilience, by 7 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 EMR more profitable than ETN?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.2% vs 35.9%; operating margin 20.1% vs 17.7%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 19.6%. EMR leads on two measures and ETN on one measure, 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 EMR's lead over ETN getting stronger or weaker?
EMR lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 22 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-21, when EMR moved ahead of ETN.
What would change the EMR vs ETN verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETN closes the Momentum gap — currently 64 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge; ETN's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EMR'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 EMR and ETN?
EMR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. ETN: 3 bullish / 2 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 EMR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On ETN it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EMR and ETN 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.