EMR vs FLS Stock Comparison
EMR currently leads FLS in this stock comparison, with AIQ scores of 58 vs 50. The clearest difference is momentum, while FLS has the stronger value profile.
What is the main difference between EMR and FLS?
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 Flowserve Corporation
EMR leads
EMR leads by 8 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Quality. Wall Street currently favors FLS on target upside.
Fragile: 2 of 6 evidence groups support EMR, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Emerson Electric Co.
Flowserve Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EMR over FLS, 58 versus 50 as of Oct 21, 2026. EMR's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and quality, while FLS holds the stronger value profile. EMR also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors FLS. 2 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EMR today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. EMR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Emerson Electric Co. and Flowserve Corporation 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 FLS 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 32EMR +40
- Value49 vs 62FLS +13
- Quality56 vs 47EMR +9
- Risk Resilience59 vs 60Even
2 of 6 evidence groups favor EMR. EMR’s edge is concentrated in momentum and quality; FLS 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 +1
No signal started or stopped since the prior session; its 3 active signals are unchanged.
EMR's lead was unchanged in the latest session.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMR and FLS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and quality.
FLS (Flowserve Corporation): the counter-case, on value, fundamentals, valuation — but at materially higher volatility, 27.6% 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
FLSFLS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLSFLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 points.
Momentum
EMREMR on the Momentum factor, by 40 points.
Lower downside
EMREMR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility.
Analyst upside
FLSFLS 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 FLS. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | EMR | FLS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +2.1% | +24.3% | FLS 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 | 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.
Dividend growth
| Dividend metric | EMR | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| 5Y dividend CAGR | 1.29% | 0.98% |
| 2020 regular DPS | $2.005 | $0.800 |
| 2025 regular DPS | $2.138 | $0.840 |
| Years increased | 5 | 1 |
| No cut in window | Yes | Yes |
| Cohort rank | #341 | not ranked |
EMR grew its split-adjusted regular dividend faster over 2020–2025 — 1.29% a year against FLS's 0.98%. 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 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 50 |
| Fundamentals | FLSon balance | revenue growth 6.8% vs 9.4%; EPS growth 16.4% vs 21.9%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs 16.6%; gross margin 53.2% vs 35.1%; operating margin 20.1% vs 12.9% — FLS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLS | Value 49 vs 62 |
| Technicals | EMR | Price vs 50-day 4.2% vs -5.2%; vs 200-day 9.7% vs -8.5% |
| Risk Resilience | Even | Risk Resilience 59 vs 60 |
| Analyst expectations | FLS | Target upside 2.1% vs 24.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMR and FLS 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 moderate at 8 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 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: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EMR +8
- 58 vs 50
- 7 sessions ago
- EMR +8
- 58 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- EMR +8
- 59 vs 51
- 90 sessions ago
- FLS +4
- 57 vs 61
The lead changed hands 7 times in this window, most recently on Sep 9 when EMR moved ahead of FLS.
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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (7.01%)
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
0 bullish / 3 bearish
Only FLS
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (1.21%)
- Downtrend Structure Active — bearish, trend, long horizon
Both carry 1 more signal that do not separate them: 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).
Price and the AIQ Score both moved up over the latest session (price +2.37%, 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.
- 1FLS closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge.
- 2FLS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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
FLS leads on balance| Metric | EMR | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 9.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.4% | 21.9% |
| Gross margin | 53.2% | 35.1% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | 12.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | 16.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 1.03 |
Performance
EMR leads 5 of 6 windows| Metric | EMR | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -1.9% | -2.2% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | 4.1% | -8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 14.9% | 2% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 10.8% | -14.8% |
| Year to date | 20.9% | 0.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 24.5% | 38.7% |
Technicals
EMR has the stronger structure| Metric | EMR | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 63.3 | 38.5 |
| ADX (14) | 11.6 | 18.8 |
| Price vs 50-day | 4.2% | -5.2% |
| Price vs 200-day | 9.7% | -8.5% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 18.5% | 27.6% |
Risk
Split| Metric | EMR | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.53 | 1.71 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.72 | 0.81 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.12 | 1.44 |
| Max drawdown | -23.7% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -2.4% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 31.7% | 50.5% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -3.9% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMR or FLS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EMR is the stronger of the two as of Oct 21, 2026, scoring 58 against FLS's 50. The edge comes from momentum and quality. FLS 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 FLS the better buy right now?
EMR carries the stronger systematic profile as of Oct 21, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: only 2 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EMR over FLS?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. EMR leads Momentum by 40 points; FLS leads Value by 13 points; EMR leads Quality by 9 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EMR or FLS?
Analyst price targets imply +2.1% upside for EMR and +24.3% for FLS, so the Street currently favors FLS. 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 FLS?
FLS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 13 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 FLS?
FLS 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 FLS?
EMR on the Momentum factor, by 40 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 FLS?
EMR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMR carries the lower 1-month annualized volatility. 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 FLS?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 53.2% vs 35.1%; operating margin 20.1% vs 12.9%; ttm roe 12.7% vs 16.6%. EMR leads on two measures and FLS 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 FLS getting stronger or weaker?
EMR lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 8 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 7 times in that window, most recently on 2026-09-09, when EMR moved ahead of FLS.
What would change the EMR vs FLS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FLS closes the Momentum gap — currently 40 points behind, the largest single contributor to EMR's edge; FLS's Death Cross Active resolves — a bearish trend 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 FLS?
EMR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FLS: 0 bullish / 3 bearish. 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 FLS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EMR and FLS 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.