EMR vs FAST Stock Comparison
FAST currently leads EMR in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 64 vs 58. The clearest difference is quality, while EMR has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between EMR and FAST?
FAST leads the current stock comparison as Fastenal Company, with the clearest separation coming from quality and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Emerson Electric Co. vs Fastenal Company
FAST leads
FAST leads by 6 AIQ points, primarily on Quality and Risk Resilience. Wall Street currently favors EMR on target upside.
Competitive: 2 of 6 evidence groups support FAST, and its signal state is cleanly positive.
Emerson Electric Co.
Fastenal Company
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FAST over EMR, 64 versus 58 as of Oct 21, 2026. FAST's advantage is driven primarily by stronger quality and risk resilience, while EMR holds the stronger value profile. FAST also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors EMR. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FAST today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FAST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Emerson Electric Co. and Fastenal Company 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 FAST 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.
- Quality56 vs 84FAST +28
- Value49 vs 30EMR +19
- Risk Resilience59 vs 74FAST +15
- Momentum72 vs 74Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor FAST. FAST’s edge is concentrated in quality and risk resilience; EMR keeps a meaningful value 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 +4
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 4 active signals are unchanged.
Largest factor move: Momentum +6
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 6 active signals are unchanged.
FAST'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 FAST both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FAST (Fastenal Company): the stronger current systematic profile, led by quality and risk resilience.
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation.
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
FASTFAST 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 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
FASTFAST on Risk Resilience, by 15 points.
Analyst upside
EMREMR on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FAST, analyst targets favor EMR. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EMR | FAST | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.1% | -4.2% | EMR has more room |
| Target dispersion | +30.6% | +27.8% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 11 | 7 | 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 | FAST |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.29% | 11.84% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.005 | $0.500 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.138 | $0.875 |
| Years increased | 5 | 5 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #341 | #64 |
FAST grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 11.84% 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
2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FAST. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FAST | 58 vs 64 |
| Fundamentals | EMRon balance | revenue growth 6.8% vs 3.2%; EPS growth 16.4% vs 6.1%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 35.1%; gross margin 53.2% vs 44.6%; operating margin 20.1% vs 20.5% — EMR takes 3 of 4 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | EMR | Value 49 vs 30 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs 4.2%; vs 200-day 9.7% vs 10.4% |
| Risk Resilience | FAST | Risk Resilience 59 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | EMR | Target upside 2.1% vs -4.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMR and FAST and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is moderate at 6 points.
- Only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The lead has been steady session to session. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's signal state is cleanly positive. (supports the conclusion holding)
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 FAST.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Jun 21 – Oct 20FAST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FAST +6
- 58 vs 64
- 7 sessions ago
- EMR +1
- 58 vs 57
- 30 sessions ago
- FAST +5
- 59 vs 64
- 90 sessions ago
- FAST +7
- 57 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Oct 19 when FAST moved ahead of EMR.
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
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral
Only FAST
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- 52-Week High Proximity — bullish, risk, long horizon (1.9%)
- MACD Bullish Crossover — bullish, momentum, short horizon
Both carry 3 more signals that do not separate them: Golden Cross Active, EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish, Uptrend Structure Active.
EMR is conflicted, so the timing case there is weaker than the score alone suggests.
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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +1.63%, AIQ +2 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.
- 1EMR closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FAST's edge.
- 2EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover.
- 3FAST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict.
- 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 | FAST |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 3.2% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.4% | 6.1% |
| Gross margin | 53.2% | 44.6% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | 20.5% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 35.1% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 0.11 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EMR | FAST |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | 0.4% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | 3.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.9% | 13.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | 13% |
| Year to date | 20.9% | 28.7% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.5% | 21.8% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | EMR | FAST |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 64 |
| ADX (14) | 11.6 | 14.5 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | 4.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.7% | 10.4% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 20.1% |
Risk
FAST is the more resilient| Metric | EMR | FAST |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 0.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | 0.77 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 1.22 |
| Max drawdown | -23.7% | -12% |
| Current drawdown | -2.4% | -1.4% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.7% | 24.4% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMR or FAST?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FAST is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 64 against EMR's 58. The edge comes from quality and risk resilience. EMR is not without a case — it holds the better value 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 EMR or FAST the better buy right now?
FAST carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FAST over EMR?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. FAST leads Quality by 28 points; EMR leads Value by 19 points; FAST leads Risk Resilience by 15 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EMR or FAST?
Analyst price targets imply +2.1% upside for EMR and -4.2% for FAST, so the Street currently favors EMR. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FAST. 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 FAST?
EMR is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. EMR on the peer-relative Value factor, by 19 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 FAST?
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 FAST?
The two are level on Momentum. 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 FAST?
FAST is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FAST on Risk Resilience, by 15 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 FAST?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.2% vs 44.6%; operating margin 20.1% vs 20.5%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 35.1%. Each name leads 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 FAST's lead over EMR getting stronger or weaker?
FAST lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 6 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 2026-10-19, when FAST moved ahead of EMR.
What would change the EMR vs FAST verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EMR closes the Quality gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FAST's edge; EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover; FAST's Golden Cross Active breaks down — it is the strongest rule currently supporting the verdict; 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 FAST?
EMR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FAST: 5 bullish / 0 bearish / 1 neutral. 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 FAST it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare EMR and FAST 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.