FLS vs FTV Stock Comparison
Flowserve Corporation vs Fortive Corporation
FLS leads
FLS leads by 1 AIQ points, primarily on Momentum.
Fragile: 3 of 6 evidence groups support FLS, and its current signal state is conflicted.
Flowserve Corporation
Fortive Corporation
The Algovestiq AIQ Score currently favors FLS over FTV, 54 versus 53 as of Sep 5, 2026. FLS's advantage is driven primarily by stronger momentum, while FTV holds the stronger quality profile. 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. FLS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
Compare Flowserve Corporation and Fortive Corporation across the Algovestiq AIQ Score, valuation, quality, momentum, risk, technicals and analyst expectations.
Compare FLS 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.
- Momentum25%50 vs 25FLS +25
- Quality30%47 vs 58FTV +11
- Value30%62 vs 66FTV +4
- Risk Resilience15%62 vs 66FTV +4
3 of 6 evidence groups favor FLS. FLS’s edge is concentrated in momentum; FTV 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.
FLS's lead was unchanged in the latest snapshot.
Deeper signal detail for each name lives on its own signals page — FLS and FTV both carry a full feed there.
The central trade-off
FLS (Flowserve Corporation): the stronger current systematic profile, led by momentum.
FTV (Fortive Corporation): the counter-case, on quality, value, risk resilience.
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
FTVFTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 points.
Momentum
FLSFLS on the Momentum factor, by 25 points.
Lower downside
FTVFTV on Risk Resilience, by 4 points.
Analyst upside
FLSFLS 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 | FLS | FTV | Note |
|---|---|---|---|
| Implied upside to target | +19.3% | +9.2% | FLS has more room |
| Target dispersion | +21.9% | +19.3% | Lower is tighter analyst agreement |
| Consensus | Buy | Hold | Context, not a primary driver |
| Analysts covering | 4 | 3 | 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 | Even | 54 vs 53 |
| Fundamentals | FLSon balance | revenue growth 9.4% vs 2.6%; EPS growth 21.9% vs 18.2%; TTM ROE 16.6% vs 8.5%; gross margin 35.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 12.9% vs 18.2% — FLS takes 3 of 5 decided legs, not all of them |
| Valuation | FTV | Value 62 vs 66 |
| Technicals | FLS | Price vs 50-day 1.8% vs -6.3%; vs 200-day 1.6% vs -0.8% |
| Risk Resilience | FTV | Risk Resilience 62 vs 66 |
| Analyst expectations | FLS | Target upside 19.3% vs 9.2% |
✓ agrees with the overall verdict · ✕ points the other way. Groups marked “not covered” lack data on one or both of FLS and FTV 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 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 FLS.
How the comparison changed
120 daily snapshots · Apr 23 – Sep 4FLS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 points over 30 sessions.
- Today
- FLS +1
- 54 vs 53
- 7 sessions ago
- FLS +2
- 58 vs 56
- 30 sessions ago
- Level
- 61 vs 61
- 90 sessions ago
- FTV +13
- 51 vs 64
The lead changed hands 4 times in this window, most recently on Aug 25 when FLS moved ahead of FTV.
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.
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
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
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 -0.71%, 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.
- 1FTV closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge.
- 2FTV's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it.
- 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
FLS leads on balance| Metric | FLS | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| Revenue growth (YoY) | 9.4% | 2.6% |
| EPS growth (YoY) | 21.9% | 18.2% |
| Gross margin | 35.1% | 63.2% |
| Operating margin | 12.9% | 18.2% |
| Return on equity (TTM) | 16.6% | 8.5% |
| Debt to equity | 1.03 | 0.58 |
Performance
FLS leads 4 of 6 windows| Metric | FLS | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| 1 week (5 sessions) | -5.9% | -3.9% |
| 1 month (20 sessions) | -1.8% | -5.4% |
| 3 months (63 sessions) | 2.3% | -6.3% |
| 6 months (126 sessions) | -5.1% | -0.8% |
| Year to date | 11.3% | 4.3% |
| 1 year (252 sessions) | 44.2% | 21.6% |
Technicals
FLS has the stronger structure| Metric | FLS | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| RSI (14) | 38.4 | 30.9 |
| ADX (14) | 23 | 22 |
| Price vs 50-day | 1.8% | -6.3% |
| Price vs 200-day | 1.6% | -0.8% |
| Volatility (1M, annualized) | 24.9% | 20.6% |
Risk
FTV is the more resilient| Metric | FLS | FTV |
|---|---|---|
| Beta | 1.73 | 0.64 |
| Sharpe ratio | 0.89 | 0.74 |
| Sortino ratio | 1.58 | 1.1 |
| Max drawdown | -30% | -13.4% |
| Current drawdown | -16.1% | -10.2% |
| Annualized volatility | 50.1% | 26.8% |
| Value at risk (95%) | -3.7% | -2.4% |
Straight answers
Each answer is regenerated from the current snapshot, not written once and left to age.
Which is better, FLS or FTV?
On the Algovestiq AIQ Score, FLS is the stronger of the two as of Sep 5, 2026, scoring 54 against FTV's 53. The edge comes from momentum. FTV 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 FLS or FTV 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: the AIQ gap is narrow at 1 points. Treat the lead as provisional.
Why does the AIQ Score favor FLS over FTV?
The composite weights Quality at 30%, Value at 30%, Momentum at 25% and Risk Resilience at 15%. FLS leads Momentum by 25 points; FTV leads Quality by 11 points; FTV leads Value by 4 points. Where the two split, the factor with the larger weight carries the result.
Which has more analyst upside, FLS or FTV?
Analyst price targets imply +19.3% upside for FLS and +9.2% for FTV, so the Street currently favors 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, FLS or FTV?
FTV is the better-valued of the two on the peer-relative Value factor. FTV on the peer-relative Value factor, by 4 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, FLS or FTV?
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, FLS or FTV?
FLS on the Momentum factor, by 25 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, FLS or FTV?
FTV is the more resilient of the two, so the other name carries the higher downside risk. FTV on Risk Resilience, by 4 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 FLS more profitable than FTV?
The profitability evidence is mixed: gross margin 35.1% vs 63.2%; operating margin 12.9% vs 18.2%; ttm roe 16.6% vs 8.5%. FLS 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 FLS's lead over FTV getting stronger or weaker?
FLS lead: Stable — the AIQ differential has held near 1 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 4 times in that window, most recently on 2026-08-25, when FLS moved ahead of FTV.
What would change the FLS vs FTV verdict?
The result is a state, not a forecast, so it changes when the underlying evidence changes. Concretely: FTV closes the Momentum gap — currently 25 points behind, the largest single contributor to FLS's edge; FTV's MACD Bearish Crossover resolves — a bearish momentum rule currently active against it; 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 FLS and FTV?
FLS: 1 bullish / 2 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 FLS is Death Cross Active (bearish, long horizon). On FTV it is Golden Cross Active (bullish, long horizon).
Compare FLS 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.