ENOV vs EW Stock Comparison
Compare ENOV and EW across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ENOV and EW?
EW leads the current stock comparison as Edwards Lifesciences Corporation, with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enovis Corporation vs Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
EW leads
EW leads by 2 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ENOV on target upside.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support EW, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enovis Corporation
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors EW over ENOV, 49 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. EW's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ENOV holds the stronger value profile. EW also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ENOV. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EW today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the AIQ gap is narrow at 2 points. EW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enovis Corporation and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Performance over time
Price-return comparison using available daily close history.
Total return comparison
Growth of $10,000
Based on available close-price history. Distribution reinvestment is not added unless already reflected in the source series.
Compare ENOV and EW 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.
- Value74 vs 28ENOV +46
- Risk Resilience40 vs 79EW +39
- Quality42 vs 69EW +27
- Momentum24 vs 31EW +7
3 of 6 evidence groups favor EW. EW’s edge is concentrated in risk resilience and quality; ENOV keeps a meaningful value edge.
What changed since the last close
Latest scored session 2026-09-10, compared against the prior scored session 2026-09-09.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
Largest factor move: Momentum +1
No new signals fired.
EW's lead widened by 1 AIQ points in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENOV and EW both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
EW (Edwards Lifesciences Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by risk resilience and quality.
ENOV (Enovis Corporation): the counter-case, on value, valuation, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 77.6% 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
EWEW on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value most heavily.
Growth
ENOVENOV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
ENOVENOV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 46 points.
Momentum
EWEW on the Momentum factor, by 7 points.
Lower downside
EWEW on Risk Resilience, by 39 points.
Analyst upside
ENOVENOV on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors EW, analyst targets favor ENOV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ENOV | EW | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +85.4% | +18.5% | ENOV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.1% | +25% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 10 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor EW. 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 | 47 vs 49 |
| Fundamentals | EWon balance | revenue growth -1.1% vs 5.6%; EPS growth 86.7% vs -36.4%; TTM ROE -68.2% vs 9.7%; gross margin 57.4% vs 78%; operating margin 4.1% vs 28.1% — EW takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENOV | Value 74 vs 28 |
| Technicals | EW | Price vs 50-day -23.9% vs -5.6%; vs 200-day -24.8% vs 2.1% |
| Risk Resilience | EW | Risk Resilience 40 vs 79 |
| Analyst expectations | ENOV | Target upside 85.4% vs 18.5% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENOV and EW 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 2 points. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 EW.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10EW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- EW +2
- 47 vs 49
- 7 sessions ago
- EW +8
- 47 vs 55
- 30 sessions ago
- EW +6
- 54 vs 60
- 90 sessions ago
- EW +2
- 58 vs 60
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Aug 6 when EW moved ahead of ENOV.
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.
2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (2.93%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
1 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (5.19%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
EW 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 +4.73%, AIQ 0 points).
Price is down while the AIQ Score moved up 1 points over the same session — price and model disagree (price -2.77%, 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.
- 1ENOV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to EW's edge.
- 2ENOV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3EW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate EW'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
EW leads on balance| Metric | ENOV | EW |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.1% | 5.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 86.7% | -36.4% |
| Gross margin | 57.4% | 78% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 28.1% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -68.2% | 9.7% |
| Debt to equity | 0.93 | 0.07 |
Performance
EW leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ENOV | EW |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.9% | -4.5% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -25.4% | -6.7% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.2% | 0.9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.9% | 2% |
| Year to date | -27% | 1.8% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41% | 8.2% |
Technicals
EW has the stronger structure| Metric | ENOV | EW |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.7 | 31.8 |
| ADX (14) | 24.5 | 20.3 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.9% | -5.6% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.8% | 2.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 77.6% | 18.5% |
Risk
EW is the more resilient| Metric | ENOV | EW |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 0.6 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.58 | 0.3 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.86 | 0.53 |
| Max drawdown | -44.8% | -13.2% |
| Current drawdown | -44.8% | -8.8% |
| Annualized volatility | 63.2% | 25.3% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -2.5% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENOV or EW?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, EW is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 49 against ENOV's 47. The edge comes from risk resilience and quality. ENOV 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 ENOV or EW the better buy right now?
EW carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 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 2 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor EW over ENOV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. ENOV leads Value by 46 points; EW leads Risk Resilience by 39 points; EW leads Quality by 27 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENOV or EW?
Analyst price targets imply +85.4% upside for ENOV and +18.5% for EW, so the Street currently favors ENOV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors EW. 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, ENOV or EW?
ENOV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENOV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 46 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, ENOV or EW?
ENOV 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, ENOV or EW?
EW on the Momentum factor, by 7 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, ENOV or EW?
EW is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. EW on Risk Resilience, by 39 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 ENOV more profitable than EW?
EW leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.4% vs 78%; operating margin 4.1% vs 28.1%; ttm roe -68.2% vs 9.7%.
Is EW's lead over ENOV getting stronger or weaker?
EW lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 2 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 119 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-05-04 and 2026-09-10. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-06, when EW moved ahead of ENOV.
What would change the ENOV vs EW verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ENOV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 39 points behind, the largest single contributor to EW's edge; ENOV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; EW's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 4 points over 30 sessions, and a further 2-point move would eliminate EW's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ENOV and EW?
ENOV: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. EW: 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 ENOV is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On EW it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ENOV and EW 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.