ENOV vs GMED Stock Comparison
Compare ENOV and GMED across AIQ Score, fundamentals, valuation, momentum, risk, analyst expectations and current market evidence.
What is the main difference between ENOV and GMED?
GMED leads the current stock comparison as Globus Medical, Inc., with the clearest separation coming from risk resilience and the broader AIQ evidence mix.
AlgovestIQ AIQ Comparison
Enovis Corporation vs Globus Medical, Inc.
GMED leads
GMED leads by 7 AIQ points, primarily on Risk Resilience and Quality, but the lead has narrowed from 14 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ENOV on target upside.
Fragile: 4 of 6 evidence groups support GMED, its lead is narrowing, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Enovis Corporation
Globus Medical, Inc.
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors GMED over ENOV, 54 versus 47 as of Sep 11, 2026. GMED's advantage is driven primarily by stronger risk resilience and quality, while ENOV holds the stronger value profile. GMED also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ENOV. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GMED today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. GMED lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Enovis Corporation and Globus Medical, Inc. 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 GMED 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.
- Risk Resilience40 vs 74GMED +34
- Quality42 vs 71GMED +29
- Value74 vs 55ENOV +19
- Momentum24 vs 21Even
4 of 6 evidence groups favor GMED. GMED’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.
No factor moved materially.
No new signals fired.
GMED's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ENOV and GMED both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
GMED (Globus Medical, Inc.): 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 27.2%.
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
GMEDGMED 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 19 points.
Momentum
EvenThe two are level on Momentum.
Lower downside
GMEDGMED on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 GMED, analyst targets favor ENOV. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ENOV | GMED | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +85.4% | +33.3% | ENOV has more room |
| Target dispersion | +67.1% | +37.4% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 5 | 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.
AIQ Agreement Matrix
4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor GMED. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | GMED | 47 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | GMEDon balance | revenue growth -1.1% vs 3.9%; EPS growth 86.7% vs 21.7%; TTM ROE -68.2% vs 11.6%; gross margin 57.4% vs 68.5%; operating margin 4.1% vs 20.8% — GMED takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | ENOV | Value 74 vs 55 |
| Technicals | GMED | Price vs 50-day -23.9% vs -7.8%; vs 200-day -24.8% vs -13.1% |
| Risk Resilience | GMED | Risk Resilience 40 vs 74 |
| Analyst expectations | ENOV | Target upside 85.4% vs 33.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ENOV and GMED 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 7 points.
- The leader's advantage has been narrowing. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- 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 GMED.
How the comparison changed
119 daily snapshots · May 4 – Sep 10GMED lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- GMED +7
- 47 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- GMED +7
- 47 vs 54
- 30 sessions ago
- GMED +14
- 54 vs 68
- 90 sessions ago
- ENOV +1
- 58 vs 57
The lead changed hands 6 times in this window, most recently on Aug 3 when GMED 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 / 4 bearish, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (6.59%)
- Keltner Channel Breakdown — bearish, volatility, short horizon
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
GMED 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).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price +0.86%, 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.
- 1ENOV closes the Risk Resilience gap — currently 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge.
- 2ENOV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it.
- 3GMED's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once.
- 4The narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate GMED'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
GMED leads on balance| Metric | ENOV | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | -1.1% | 3.9% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 86.7% | 21.7% |
| Gross margin | 57.4% | 68.5% |
| Operating margin | 4.1% | 20.8% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | -68.2% | 11.6% |
| Debt to equity | 0.93 | 0.02 |
Performance
GMED leads 6 of 6 windows| Metric | ENOV | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -8.9% | -8.8% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -25.4% | -14.1% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -16.2% | -9% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -25.9% | -15.6% |
| Year to date | -27% | -13.6% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | -41% | 23.5% |
Technicals
GMED has the stronger structure| Metric | ENOV | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 16.7 | 15.2 |
| ADX (14) | 24.5 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | -23.9% | -7.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | -24.8% | -13.1% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 77.6% | 27.2% |
Risk
GMED is the more resilient| Metric | ENOV | GMED |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.49 | 0.78 |
| Sharpe ratio | -0.58 | 0.59 |
| Sortino ratio | -0.86 | 1.34 |
| Max drawdown | -44.8% | -24% |
| Current drawdown | -44.8% | -24% |
| Annualized volatility | 63.2% | 49% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -6.3% | -3.1% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ENOV or GMED?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, GMED is the stronger of the two as of Sep 11, 2026, scoring 54 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 GMED the better buy right now?
GMED carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 11, 2026, and the comparison is rated Fragile — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Fragile rating means the conclusion is sensitive: the leader's advantage has been narrowing. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor GMED over ENOV?
The composite weights Quality, Value, Momentum and Risk Resilience. GMED leads Risk Resilience by 34 points; GMED leads Quality by 29 points; ENOV leads Value by 19 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ENOV or GMED?
Analyst price targets imply +85.4% upside for ENOV and +33.3% for GMED, so the Street currently favors ENOV. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors GMED. 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 GMED?
ENOV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. ENOV 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, ENOV or GMED?
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 GMED?
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, ENOV or GMED?
GMED is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. GMED on Risk Resilience, by 34 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 GMED?
GMED leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 57.4% vs 68.5%; operating margin 4.1% vs 20.8%; ttm roe -68.2% vs 11.6%.
Is GMED's lead over ENOV getting stronger or weaker?
GMED lead: Weakening — the AIQ differential moved from 14 to 7 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 6 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-03, when GMED moved ahead of ENOV.
What would change the ENOV vs GMED 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 34 points behind, the largest single contributor to GMED's edge; ENOV's Keltner Channel Breakdown resolves — a bearish volatility rule currently active against it; GMED's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 4 bearish rules at once; the narrowing continues — the lead has already given back 7 points over 30 sessions, and a further 7-point move would eliminate GMED's advantage entirely.
What do the current signals say about ENOV and GMED?
ENOV: 2 bullish / 3 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. GMED: 1 bullish / 4 bearish, 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 GMED it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ENOV and GMED 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.