ETN vs FLS Stock Comparison
Eaton Corporation plc vs Flowserve Corporation
FLS leads
FLS leads by 16 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum and Value, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FLS, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eaton Corporation plc
Flowserve Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLS over ETN, 54 versus 38 as of Sep 5, 2026. FLS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum and value. FLS also shows the stronger technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average. 3 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FLS today, and the comparison is rated Fragile on stability: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Eaton Corporation plc and Flowserve Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare ETN 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.
- Momentum25%15 vs 50FLS +35
- Value30%38 vs 62FLS +24
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 62FLS +10
- Quality30%50 vs 47Even
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FLS. FLS’s edge is concentrated in momentum and value.
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.
FLS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETN and FLS both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLS (Flowserve Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum and value.
ETN (Eaton Corporation plc): the counter-case, on fundamentals — but at materially higher volatility, 32% against 24.9%.
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
FLSFLS on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FLSFLS on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FLSFLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 points.
Momentum
FLSFLS on the Momentum factor, by 35 points.
Lower downside
FLSFLS on Risk Resilience, by 10 points.
Analyst upside
EvenAnalyst targets are level or not covered for both names.
AIQ vs Wall Street
Where the systematic read and the analyst consensus line up — and where they do not.
| Measure | ETN | FLS | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.4% | +19.3% | Level |
| Target dispersion | +18.9% | +21.9% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Buy | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 4 | 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 FLS. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FLS | 38 vs 54 |
| Fundamentals | ETNon balance | revenue growth 14.5% vs 9.4%; EPS growth -5.4% vs 21.9%; TTM ROE 19.6% vs 16.6%; gross margin 35.9% vs 35.1%; operating margin 17.7% vs 12.9% — ETN takes 4 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FLS | Value 38 vs 62 |
| Technicals | Even | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs 1.8%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs 1.6% |
| Risk Resilience | FLS | Risk Resilience 52 vs 62 |
| Analyst expectations | Even | Target upside 18.4% vs 19.3% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ETN 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 wide at 16 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- Only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. (argues the conclusion is provisional)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (supports the conclusion holding)
- 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)
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 FLS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 16 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLS +16
- 38 vs 54
- 7 sessions ago
- FLS +21
- 37 vs 58
- 30 sessions ago
- FLS +6
- 55 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FLS +1
- 50 vs 51
The lead changed hands 3 times in this window, most recently on Jul 14 when ETN 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.
2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (9.14%)
- RSI Oversold - Potential Bounce — bullish, momentum, short horizon
- ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode — neutral, volatility, short horizon (3.55%)
1 bullish / 2 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Death Cross Active — bearish, trend, long horizon (0.94%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- EMA Ribbon Expansion Bullish — bullish, trend, medium horizon
FLS 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 +3.46%, AIQ 0 points).
Neither the price nor the AIQ Score moved enough in the latest session to confirm or contradict the other (price -0.71%, 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.
- 1ETN closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge.
- 2ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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
ETN leads on balance| Metric | ETN | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 9.4% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.4% | 21.9% |
| Gross margin | 35.9% | 35.1% |
| Operating margin | 17.7% | 12.9% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.6% | 16.6% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 1.03 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ETN | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -5.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.4% | -1.8% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.1% | 2.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.9% | -5.1% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 11.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 44.2% |
Technicals
Split| Metric | ETN | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.9 | 38.4 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 23 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | 1.8% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | 1.6% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 24.9% |
Risk
FLS is the more resilient| Metric | ETN | FLS |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 1.73 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.89 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.69 | 1.58 |
| Max drawdown | -18.6% | -30% |
| Current drawdown | -13.7% | -16.1% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.2% | 50.1% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -3.7% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ETN or FLS?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against ETN's 38. The edge comes from momentum and value. 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 ETN or FLS the better buy right now?
FLS 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: only 3 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLS over ETN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FLS leads Momentum by 35 points; FLS leads Value by 24 points; FLS leads Risk Resilience by 10 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, ETN or FLS?
Analyst price targets imply +18.4% upside for ETN and +19.3% for FLS. 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, ETN or FLS?
FLS is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FLS on the peer-relative Value factor, by 24 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, ETN 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, ETN or FLS?
FLS on the Momentum factor, by 35 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, ETN or FLS?
FLS is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FLS on Risk Resilience, by 10 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 ETN more profitable than FLS?
ETN leads on the comparable margin measures — gross margin 35.9% vs 35.1%; operating margin 17.7% vs 12.9%; ttm roe 19.6% vs 16.6%.
Is FLS's lead over ETN getting stronger or weaker?
FLS lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 16 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has changed hands 3 times in that window, most recently on 2026-07-14, when ETN moved ahead of FLS.
What would change the ETN vs FLS verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETN closes the Momentum gap — currently 35 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge; ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FLS's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 2 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 ETN and FLS?
ETN: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FLS: 1 bullish / 2 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 ETN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FLS it is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon).
Compare ETN and FLS 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.