ETN vs FTV Stock Comparison
Eaton Corporation plc vs Fortive Corporation
FTV leads
FTV leads by 15 AIQ points, primarily on Value and Risk Resilience, and the lead has widened from 6 points over 30 sessions. Wall Street currently favors ETN on target upside.
Competitive: 4 of 6 evidence groups support FTV, its lead is widening, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Eaton Corporation plc
Fortive Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FTV over ETN, 53 versus 38 as of Sep 5, 2026. FTV's advantage is driven primarily by stronger value and risk resilience. FTV also shows the weaker technical structure relative to its 50-day moving average, though analyst target upside currently favors ETN. 4 of 6 covered evidence groups favor FTV today, and the comparison is rated Competitive on stability: the leader is throwing conflicting signals. FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions. FTV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so a sweep is not explained by valuation alone — it deserves additional scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, expectations or event risk.
Compare Eaton Corporation plc and Fortive Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare ETN and FTV 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.
- Value30%38 vs 66FTV +28
- Risk Resilience15%52 vs 66FTV +14
- Momentum25%15 vs 25FTV +10
- Quality30%50 vs 58FTV +8
4 of 6 evidence groups favor FTV. FTV’s edge is concentrated in value and risk resilience.
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.
FTV's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — ETN and FTV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FTV (Fortive Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by value and risk resilience.
ETN (Eaton Corporation plc): the counter-case, on technicals, analyst expectations — but at materially higher volatility, 32% against 20.6%.
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
FTVFTV on the overall AIQ Score, which weights Quality and Value at 30% each.
Growth
FTVFTV on combined revenue and EPS growth.
Value
FTVFTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 points.
Momentum
FTVFTV on the Momentum factor, by 10 points.
Lower downside
FTVFTV on Risk Resilience, by 14 points.
Analyst upside
ETNETN on implied upside to the consensus price target.
AIQ vs Wall Street
The model and the Street disagree here: AIQ favors FTV, analyst targets favor ETN. That disagreement is the most useful thing on this page.
| Measure | ETN | FTV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +18.4% | +9.2% | ETN has more room |
| Target dispersion | +18.9% | +19.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 6 | 3 | 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 FTV. A wide gap backed by one group is a weaker case than a narrow gap backed by five.
| Evidence group | Favors | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| AIQ Score | FTV | 38 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | FTVon balance | revenue growth 14.5% vs 2.6%; EPS growth -5.4% vs 18.2%; TTM ROE 19.6% vs 8.5%; gross margin 35.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 17.7% vs 18.2% — FTV takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FTV | Value 38 vs 66 |
| Technicals | ETN | Price vs 50-day -1.1% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day 4.3% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FTV | Risk Resilience 52 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | ETN | Target upside 18.4% vs 9.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of ETN and FTV and are excluded from the count.
AIQ Decision Stability
The two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
- The AIQ gap is wide at 15 points. (supports the conclusion holding)
- The leader's advantage has been widening. (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 FTV.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FTV +15
- 38 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- FTV +19
- 37 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- FTV +6
- 55 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FTV +14
- 50 vs 64
The lead has not changed hands in this window.
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 / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted
- Golden Cross Active — bullish, trend, long horizon (4.69%)
- Bollinger Band Squeeze — neutral, volatility, short horizon
- MACD Bearish Crossover — bearish, momentum, short horizon
FTV 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 -1.09%, 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 Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTV's edge.
- 2ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend.
- 3FTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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
FTV leads on balance| Metric | ETN | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 14.5% | 2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | -5.4% | 18.2% |
| Gross margin | 35.9% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 17.7% | 18.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 19.6% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.05 | 0.58 |
Performance
Split across windows| Metric | ETN | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -4.5% | -3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -11.4% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | -5.1% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | 11.9% | -0.8% |
| Year to date | 24.7% | 4.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 15.5% | 21.6% |
Technicals
ETN has the stronger structure| Metric | ETN | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 23.9 | 30.9 |
| ADX (14) | 17.3 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | -1.1% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 4.3% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 32% | 20.6% |
Risk
FTV is the more resilient| Metric | ETN | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.75 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.47 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 0.69 | 1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -18.6% | -13.4% |
| Current drawdown | -13.7% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 38.2% | 26.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -4.2% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, ETN or FTV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FTV is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 53 against ETN's 38. The edge comes from value and risk resilience. 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 FTV the better buy right now?
FTV carries the stronger systematic profile as of Sep 5, 2026, and the comparison is rated Competitive — 4 of 6 covered evidence groups agree. A Competitive rating means the two are close enough that your objective, not the score, should decide.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FTV over ETN?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FTV leads Value by 28 points; FTV leads Risk Resilience by 14 points; FTV leads Momentum by 10 points. FTV leads on all four AIQ factor dimensions. Value is itself one of those four, so the sweep is not explained by ETN simply being cheaper — it warrants extra scrutiny for unmodeled catalysts, forward expectations or event risk the factors do not capture.
Which has more analyst upside, ETN or FTV?
Analyst price targets imply +18.4% upside for ETN and +9.2% for FTV, so the Street currently favors ETN. That points the opposite way to the AIQ Score, which favors FTV. 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, ETN or FTV?
FTV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 28 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 FTV?
FTV 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 FTV?
FTV on the Momentum factor, by 10 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 FTV?
FTV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTV on Risk Resilience, by 14 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 FTV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.9% vs 63.2%; operating margin 17.7% vs 18.2%; ttm roe 19.6% vs 8.5%. ETN leads on one measure and FTV on two measures, 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 FTV's lead over ETN getting stronger or weaker?
FTV lead: Strengthening — the AIQ differential moved from 6 to 15 points over 30 sessions. This is measured from 120 daily comparison snapshots between 2026-04-23 and 2026-09-04. The lead has not changed hands in that window.
What would change the ETN vs FTV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: ETN closes the Value gap — currently 28 points behind, the largest single contributor to FTV's edge; ETN's ATR Expansion - Breakout Mode turns directional — it is neutral today and would confirm a change in trend; FTV's conflicting signal state resolves bearish — it currently carries 1 bullish and 1 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 FTV?
ETN: 2 bullish / 1 bearish / 1 neutral, conflicted. FTV: 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 ETN is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon). On FTV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare ETN and FTV 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.