EMR vs FMC Stock Comparison
Emerson Electric Co. vs FMC Corporation
FMC leads
FMC leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, having only recently taken the lead back from EMR.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FMC, the lead recently changed hands, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Emerson Electric Co.
FMC Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FMC over EMR, 51 versus 50 as of Sep 5, 2026. FMC's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value, while EMR holds the stronger quality profile. FMC also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FMC today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FMC lead: Reversed — EMR led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FMC now leads by 1.
Compare Emerson Electric Co. and FMC Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare EMR and FMC 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.
- Quality30%56 vs 16EMR +40
- Momentum25%39 vs 73FMC +34
- Value30%49 vs 75FMC +26
- Risk Resilience15%55 vs 35EMR +20
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FMC. FMC’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value; EMR keeps a meaningful quality edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-04, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-03.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
FMC's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — EMR and FMC both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FMC (FMC Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
EMR (Emerson Electric Co.): the counter-case, on quality, risk resilience, fundamentals.
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
FMCFMC on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FMCFMC on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FMCFMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 points.
Momentum
FMCFMC on the Momentum factor, by 34 points.
Lower downside
EMREMR on Risk Resilience, by 20 points.
Analyst upside
FMCFMC on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | EMR | FMC | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +7% | +15.7% | FMC has more room |
| Target dispersion | +31.2% | +66.7% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 9 | 8 | Higher coverage generally improves confidence |
Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions. Dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FMC. 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 | 50 vs 51 |
| Fundamentals | EMRon balance | revenue growth 6.8% vs 14.3%; EPS growth 16.4% vs 34.2%; TTM ROE 12.7% vs -118.6%; gross margin 53.2% vs 35.3%; operating margin 20.1% vs -71.6% — EMR takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FMC | Value 49 vs 75 |
| Technicals | FMC | Price vs 50-day 2.4% vs 17.1%; vs 200-day 5.4% vs -4.7% |
| Risk Resilience | EMR | Risk Resilience 55 vs 35 |
| Analyst expectations | FMC | Target upside 7% vs 15.7% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of EMR and FMC 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 1 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 lead has swung materially session to session. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader is throwing conflicting signals. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Signal direction runs against the verdict: the leader is net-bearish while the laggard is net-bullish. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- Analyst targets on the leader are widely dispersed. (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 FMC.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FMC lead: Reversed — EMR led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FMC now leads by 1.
- Today
- FMC +1
- 50 vs 51
- 7 sessions ago
- EMR +2
- 52 vs 50
- 30 sessions ago
- EMR +18
- 59 vs 41
- 90 sessions ago
- EMR +8
- 51 vs 43
The lead changed hands once in this window, most recently on Aug 31 when FMC 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
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.70%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- Uptrend Structure Active — bullish, trend, long horizon
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 2 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (21.92%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- BB Upper Band Breach — bearish, volatility, short horizon
FMC 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 +1.74%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.08%, 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.
- 1EMR closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to FMC's edge.
- 2EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish.
- 3FMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once.
- 4A regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, 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 | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 6.8% | 14.3% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 16.4% | 34.2% |
| Gross margin | 53.2% | 35.3% |
| Operating margin | 20.1% | -71.6% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 12.7% | -118.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.68 | 2.62 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | EMR | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.8% | 18.1% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -4.3% | 23% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 5.7% | 6.5% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 5.6% | -9.2% |
| Year to date | 13.2% | -6.4% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 14.3% | -66.3% |
Technicals
FMC has the stronger structure| Metric | EMR | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 28.7 | 78.9 |
| ADX (14) | 24.6 | 21.1 |
| Price vs 50-day | 2.4% | 17.1% |
| Price vs 200-day | 5.4% | -4.7% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 26.1% | 58.6% |
Risk
EMR is the more resilient| Metric | EMR | FMC |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.58 | 1.52 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.5 | -1.02 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.76 | -1.04 |
| Max drawdown | -23.7% | -73.9% |
| Current drawdown | -8.6% | -66.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 32.3% | 74.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.5% | -6% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, EMR or FMC?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FMC is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 51 against EMR's 50. The edge comes from momentum and value. EMR 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 EMR or FMC the better buy right now?
FMC carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 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 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FMC over EMR?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. EMR leads Quality by 40 points; FMC leads Momentum by 34 points; FMC leads Value by 26 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, EMR or FMC?
Analyst price targets imply +7% upside for EMR and +15.7% for FMC, so the Street currently favors FMC. The model and the Street agree here, which is a broader base of evidence than either alone. Analyst targets are expectations, not predictions, and dispersion matters as much as the midpoint.
Which is better value, EMR or FMC?
FMC is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FMC on the peer-relative Value factor, by 26 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 FMC?
FMC 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 FMC?
FMC on the Momentum factor, by 34 points. Momentum carries 25% of 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 FMC?
EMR is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EMR on Risk Resilience, by 20 points. The Risk Resilience factor weights 15% of the composite; position sizing usually responds to it more usefully than the buy/avoid decision does.
Is EMR more profitable than FMC?
EMR leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 53.2% vs 35.3%; operating margin 20.1% vs -71.6%; ttm roe 12.7% vs -118.6%.
Is FMC's lead over EMR getting stronger or weaker?
FMC lead: Reversed — EMR led by 18 AIQ points 30 sessions ago; FMC now leads by 1. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands once in that window, most recently on 2026-08-31, when FMC moved ahead of EMR.
What would change the EMR vs FMC verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: EMR closes the Momentum gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to FMC's edge; EMR generates a confirmed bullish trend signal it does not currently carry, such as MACD Bullish Crossover or EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish; FMC's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 2 bullish and 3 bearish rules at once; a regime shift changes factor weighting — the composite weights Quality and Value at 30% each, so a rotation toward either would move the result most.
What do the current signals say about EMR and FMC?
EMR: 3 bullish / 1 bearish, conflicted. FMC: 2 bullish / 3 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 EMR is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FMC it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare EMR and FMC with others
How this comparison is scored
The Algovestiq AIQ Score composites four factors — Quality (30%), Value (30%), Momentum (25%) and Risk (15%). 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.